Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

E.N.S.A. (Deferments)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the number of persons, male and female, who have been granted deferment conditionally upon giving paid service to E.N.S.A.; the ages of those concerned; and the identifying tribunals by whom these deferments were, respectively, recommended?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Deferment has been granted for 682 persons who have undertaken to give their services to E.N.S.A. for not less than six weeks each year. This total comprises 154 men over 33 years of age and 528 women born between the years 1918 and 1924 inclusive, and in each case deferment has been granted on the recommendation of the Lytton Committee.

Mr. Liddall: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the majority of those whom he has mentioned give longer service than six weeks to E.N.S.A?

Mr. Bevin: Six weeks is the minimum. I think they are doing pretty well.

Conscientious Objectors

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour, the number of conscientious objectors of suitable age and physical fitness who have been directed to work in the coalmines?

Mr. Bevin: The information desired is not available, but I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers that I gave to the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) and Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) on 9th December, and to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell) on 23rd September.

Sir T. Moore: Not having those answers by me, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his policy to direct these and suitable conscientious objectors to the mines before he directs our young and immature boys?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The point is that a conscientious objector has a right to go to a tribunal, and coalmining, like everything else, is one of the occupations to which it is open to the chairman to direct people. I cannot interfere with the process of the law.

Mr. Lawson: Does it not look from the figures as though practically everybody is directing conscientious objectors to mining?

Mr. Bevin: I think the miners are to be complimented on the way they have withstood the danger that other people want to avoid.

Work Direction (Coalmining)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange that the medical examination of youths liable to be conscripted for coalmining shall include examination by a psychologist, who will decide whether they are temperamentally suited or not for work of this kind, before their names are subjected to the ballot?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to submit all men who are examined under the National Service Acts to a special psychological examination directed to temperamental fitness for coal-mining. Men selected for direction to coalmining will be given a further medical examination if they so request.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the trouble that has been caused in the mines in the past by compelling those who were unsuited to the work to undertake it, does the Minister not think it would be just as well to be wise in time and take such steps as I have indicated, as there is otherwise the danger of trouble from the other miners?

Mr. Bevin: I have never yet accepted psychologists as people with supreme wisdom.

Mr. Lipson: Very short-sighted.

Mr. George Griffiths: No. It is the hon. Member who is short-sighted.

British and South African Women

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has come to any arrangement with the Government of South Africa that English women living in South Africa but not born there, should be conscripted by the Union Government; and South African women born in South Africa but held up in England by the war should be conscripted by the British Government?

Mr. Bevin: No such arrangement has been made, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government of South Africa have not introduced conscription.

Discharged Worker, South Harrow

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. E. H. Barker, of 14, Park Gates, South Harrow, was discharged from his employment on grounds of serious misconduct, as a result of which police court proceedings were brought against him; that these proceedings were dismissed and that the Appeal Tribunal nevertheless rejected Mr. Barker's appeal against his discharge; and whether, in view of the fact that the alleged misconduct constituted the sole basis for the police court proceedings which were dismissed, he will order a re-hearing of the case?

Mr. Bevin: The local appeal board were aware of the result of the police court proceedings, but, in the light of all the evidence before them, they were of the opinion that the worker's action amounted to serious misconduct justifying dismissal. In these circumstances, the National Service Officer has no power under Article 5 (3) (b) of the Essential Work Order to direct Mr. Barker's reinstatement, and there is no further action I can take in the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this not an amazing situation and one that calls for intervention by the Minister? This man was proved in a public court innocent of misconduct, but the employers, somehow or other, are able to get an appeal court to decide against the decision of the public court. Does that not call for some intervention?

Mr. Bevin: There are many things done in industry and life which are not criminal offences but are very unwise.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not begging the point? The same chap who was before the public court was before the appeal committee, but while the public court exonerated him from the charge of misconduct the appeal board dismissed him for it. He was charged before the committee with a criminal offence.

Mr. Bevin: In answer to that long argument I can only say that the man was charged in the court with a criminal offence. In the case of the Essential Work Order it was only a question of fact whether his misconduct contravened the Order and not whether it was criminal at all.

Lady Mosley

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour if he intends calling up Lady Mosley under the Essential Work Order?

Mr. Bevin: I presume the reference is to action under the Registration for Employment Order. I am informed that Lady Mosley has two children of her own under 14 living with her, and it would not be in accordance with normal practice to call upon her to take work under that Order, even apart from any special restrictions to which her movements may be subject.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the activities of this lady are confined to looking after her sick husband and her young children?

Mr. Bevin: That is a matter for the Home Office.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask whether Lady Mosley could be examined for phlebitis?

Mr. John Dugdale: Has she nurses or maids to help her in looking after them?

Mr. Bevin: Not that I am aware of.

Disabled Miners, South Wales

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that South Wales miners on full compensation are being called up for medical examination by the recruiting section of his Ministry; and whether he will take the necessary action to prevent this procedure?

Mr. Bevin: I am not clear what kind of cases my hon. Friend has in mind, and perhaps he will let me have particulars.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that this is rather an urgent matter? The two colliers who were on full compensation for total disablement were called to a medical board yesterday for examination, for call-up for the Army.

Mr. Bevin: We might not have known they were on compensation. They may have been on the register, duly registered. If the hon. Member will let me have the names and there has been any difficulty about it, I will look into it.

Coalmining Ballots

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether the result of the draw, on the occasion of each ballot for compulsory coalmining, will be published forthwith so that members of the J.T.C. may know their position?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; since there are going to be frequent ballots, the publication of the number or numbers drawn would cause confusion and would mislead many men who are not for the time being on the register for calling up to the Forces, because, for example, their calling up is deferred or postponed and they are, therefore, not within the field of the ballot. Each man picked out for coalmining as a result of the ballot will receive notice of the fact very shortly afterwards.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it fair to keep boys training for the Forces in their spare time when there is a strong probability that they will go into the mines?

Mr. Bevin: Oh, yes. I think the training for the Forces is of a character, physical and mental, that does not detract from their ability to work in the mines.

Unfit Miners

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the district of Thornley and Wheatley Hill, County Durham, there are several men who have been rendered unemployed owing to bronchial complaints; that all these men were coal hewers; that they applied for surface work which was refused; that they are now receiving unemployment benefit which is inadequate to maintain themselves and their families; and whether he will take all possible steps to find suitable work for them and others similarly placed?

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to expedite the inquiries?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I have given instructions.

Directed Worker (Strike)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Labour whether when a worker has been directed to another area and a strike takes place involving the union of which the worker is a member, the worker in question fails to qualify for the guaranteed wage or for the continuing liability allowances unless he reports for work, in spite of the strike in which his union is engaged; and whether he is also refused permission to return to his former employment in his own area?

Mr. Bevin: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to a worker directed to employment in an undertaking scheduled under the Essential Work Order. If the worker fails to report for work he is not entitled to the guaranteed wage or allowances. If he wishes to return to his former employment the National Service Officer will consider his application. If permission to return is refused, he has the usual right of appeal.

Sir I. Albery: Does the result of that answer not mean that a worker who is directed to another district forfeits all pay and allowances unless he is willing, I might say able, to blackleg the union with which he is now working?

Mr. Bevin: The point is that if there is a strike and the man wants to return because of the strike the National Service Officer will take that into account immediately the case is brought to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANUFACTURERS (PREPARATORY POST-WAR WORK)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to consider applications from manufacturers for permission to use a limited amount of skilled labour in preparatory post-war work?

Mr. Bevin: In present circumstances I can only agree to skilled labour being


employed on preparatory post-war work if, in rare individual cases, special circumstances, such as health or hardship, make it impossible to call up the individuals concerned to the Forces or transfer them to essential work.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in view of the recent speech of the Minister of Reconstruction, this matter is giving great concern, because of the desire of employers to be ready, as they are urged to do by the Government, for when the war is over? Can he not arrange to consider special applications?

Mr. Bevin: Very much deeper considerations are associated with this problem than that, and I would rather not be pressed for a further answer.

Mr. John Dugdale: Is it not a fact that the United States are transferring a certain amount of labour to this type of work? It is my impression that they are doing so.

Mr. Bevin: That is one of the reasons why I do not want to say any more.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION PLAN

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in any demobilisation scheme, the service of troops who have fought in particularly difficult climates will be taken into consideration in fixing dates of discharge?

Mr. Bevin: The general demobilisation plan is still under examination, and it is not possible, at present, to make any further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

The Late Sir John Herbert

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sorensen.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I hope, before answering Question No. 16, I might be allowed to say one word to express the regret which we all feel at the premature death of Sir John Herbert, once a well loved Member of this House, and since a popular and esteemed Governor of the great Province of Bengal. There can be little doubt that his unwearying devotion to duty contributed to the breakdown which ended in his death.

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Gandhi

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any report on the health of Mrs. Gandhi; and whether, as in the case of other women detainees who have been released on grounds of ill-health, Mrs. Gandhi is likely to be released from detention?

Mr. Amery: Mrs. Gandhi, who has been subject to heart attacks for some time, had two severe heart attacks at the end of November. Since then she has had one further slight attack, but although weak is reported to be better. The Government of India some time ago considered her release on grounds of health, but formed the view to which they still hold that it would be in Mrs. Gandhi's own interest to remain where she is with one of the most eminent heart specialists in India living on the premises and able to attend her at any time.

Mr. Sorensen: While also expressing the sympathy so eloquently expressed by the Secretary of State, might I ask, regarding Mrs. Gandhi, whether she has the opportunity and option of leaving if she so desires?

Mr. Amery: The question of leaving was considered, and she has been allowed to see relatives, but following medical advice it was considered that she is most securely situated where she is.

Mr. Sorensen: While thoroughly appreciating all that has been done for Mrs. Gandhi, can I take it that if the medical advisers desire it or she herself desires to leave incarceration, permission will be given to her?

Mr. Amery: I must leave that to the Government of India.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not the heart condition of Mrs. Gandhi worse than phlebitis?

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from this reply that the strong feelings expressed by the other side of the House are only for the liberation of Fascists and not for the liberation of fighters for freedom such as the Indians?

Bengal (Starvation and Disease)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary o State for India whether the Benga Government have supplied to the Central Government or have published information respecting deaths through starvation


the number taken to hospital or medically treated for conditions arising through malnutrition and the number of cases of cholera and the deaths from this during the past six months?

Mr. Amery: As I informed the hon. Member on 2nd December, figures of famine deaths for the whole of Bengal are not available. Figures for Calcutta for the period 16th August to 11th December, 1943, are as follows:—Admissions to hospital of starving persons 16,285. Deaths among such admissions 6,156. In addition, during the period 1st August to 11th December, the number of bodies disposed of by police or non-official relief organisations in Calcutta was 9,216, but this total may include some deaths not due to starvation. The total number of deaths from cholera in the whole of the Bengal Presidency between 27th June and 13th November was 77,938.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement issued allegedly by the Bengal Public Health Department that the total number of deaths directly or indirectly attributable to starvation is round about 150,000 in Bengal?

Mr. Amery: I can only go by the figures I receive from the Central Government of India, which in turn receives its figures from the Bengal Government.

Junior Married Officers (Cost of Living)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship to officers and especially married junior officers due to the high cost of living in India; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to improve their position?

Mr. Amery: Proposals for ameliorating the position of the junior married officer are under discussion with the Government of India, and I am doing my best to expedite a decision.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the position of other ranks be taken into account, since the high cost of living must presumably affect them as well as officers?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I think they are being taken into account, but the particular problem of Income Tax which affects the junior married officer does not affect them.

Indian Seamen (Wages and Conditions)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the wages paid to Indian seamen employed on British-owned ships are approximately only one-fourth of that paid to Britishers employed on the same vessels and that the cubic space allowed to Indian seamen on those ships is approximately one-half that allowed to the rest of the crew; and will he take steps to remedy these anomalies?

Mr. Amery: If the comparison is between the wages of the ordinary Indian seaman and the fully-qualified European A.B. or efficient deckhand the position is as stated by the hon. Member. But the Indian does not do the same amount of work and there is accordingly a great disparity in the numbers that have to be employed. As regards accommodation, it is true that the minimum cubic space required by the Merchant Shipping Acts to be provided in the accommodation for Indian seamen is much less than that required for European crews. But in practice the space provided for Indian seamen on ships built in recent years has almost invariably been not less than the statutory minimum required for European crews. As I informed the hon. Member on 2nd December, the position regarding the conditions of employment of Indian seamen is at present under active consideration by the Government of India.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest in his answer that one European can do the work of four Indians, and really cannot he take some action to bring these disgraceful conditions to an end?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, I certainly would not go as far as that. As I say, the problem of improving these conditions is at the moment being actively considered by the Government of India.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it the implication that one Indian breathes only one-quarter of the air that one Englishman breathes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that conditions have been bad for some time, and why has not action been taken before?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. If the hon. Member would do a little calculation, he would find that 72 is rather more than a quarter of 120.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN INTERNEE (RELEASE)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a German national, of whose name he has been informed, was recently released from the Isle of Man after three years internment; and whether he has been drafted to work of national importance?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I was satisfied that the German refugee from Nazi oppression, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers, could now be released from internment without prejudice to the interests either of national security or of public order. I therefore authorised his release after he gave an undertaking to perform in any part of the United Kingdom any work of national importance, including training, for which the Minister of Labour and National Service considered that he was fitted. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that the man was assigned to work appropriate to his qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE GUARD DUTIES, LONDON

Sir Robert Young: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory arrangements for night fire-watching in London; that in some boroughs an attendance book has to be signed by those on duty while in others no record is kept; that in roads adjacent to each other, and in the same road, fire-watchers are on duty one night in five and others one night in eight; that some persons fail to turn out for their duty and in some sections of a road no fire-watching appears to be done; and whether he will take steps to regularise the record of attendances and equalise, in the same area, the number of fire-watchers in each section and their nights on duty?

Mr. H. Morrison: Unedr the Fire Guard (Local Authority Services) Order, 1943, discretion is given to each local authority to decide whether or not attendance books shall be kept in street fire party areas. It is inevitable that rotas must vary from one party area to another according to the number of members of each party, but under the Order no person can be required to perform more than 48 hours of fire guard duty in each 4-weekly period. The local authority has full power to prosecute

any person who fails to perform these duties.

Sir R. Young: Does my right hon. Friend know that the fire watchers on one side of a road do not know who are watching the other side of the road? They themselves have been asked about this question, and they have no information one way or another.

Mr. Morrison: Is that on the boundary of two local authority areas?

Sir R. Young: No, it is not.

Mr. Morrison: Then if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars, I will look into the matter.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is Sir Oswald Mosley fire watching?

Oral Answers to Questions — DETAINED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Driberg: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the improvement in the national fortunes and the present conditions of security, he is considering the early release of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay)?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir, I am not at present able to give the hon. Member's Question a favourable answer; but this and other cases will be reviewed from time to time in the light of the circumstances then obtaining, and I shall, of course, be willing to take into consideration any representations which the hon. Member may desire to make on behalf of the detainee in question.

Mr. Driberg: In any review of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he could hardly attach to the release of a member of this House the same restrictions on speech and publication as are imposed on Sir Oswald Mosley, and also that the hon. and gallant Member admitted in the witness box having used the machinery of this House to spread Nazi propaganda?

Mr. Morrison: All relevant considerations will be kept in mind, including the fact that he is a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will my right hon. friend also bear in mind the very great hardship caused to the constituency


of the hon. and gallant Member, which has been in effect disfranchised for this long period?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. But my primary consideration, as my hon. friend will appreciate, must be the security of the State.

Captain W. T. Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reference to spreading Nazi propaganda was to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member used this House to advertise the wave-lengths of the German propaganda, and is he aware that at that time "The Times" newspaper was advertising those wavelengths every day?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I had better enter into the details.

Major Stourton: Is my right hon. friend aware that it is derogatory to the dignity of this honourable House and utterly at variance with its traditions that a Member of it should be imprisoned for more than three years without trial? Will my right hon. Friend undertake the necessary action?

Mr. Morrison: That point was dealt with by the Committee of Privileges.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider setting up a Committee to investigate the problem of juvenile delinquency in all its aspects?

Mr. H. Morrison: The suggestion made by my hon. Friend has been well in my mind in connection with post-war developments, and I shall hope before long to appoint a Committee to advise me on some or all of the aspects of this subject. I should like, however, to take the opportunity of saying that ten years' experience of the working of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, has satisfied my advisers that, generally speaking, the principles on which young offenders are at present being dealt with are sound, and that progress has continued, in spite of the unfortunate impact of war on social conditions. I should like also to express my warm appreciation of the admirable and successful work, of which the general public knows so little, done by justices sitting in juvenile courts, by probation

officers and by the heads and staff of approved schools and other homes or institutions for children, which assist the juvenile courts in their work.

Dr. Thomas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he give the Committee the widest possible terms of reference in this matter, because these children are the future citizens of our country, and juvenile delinquency has increased enormously during the war, not only in a legal sense but also in a general way?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly give consideration to the points to which my hon. Friend calls attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITONS PUBLISHING SOCIETY

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the activities of the Britons Publishing Society, 40, Great Ormond Street, London, which specialises in anti-Semitic literature; whether he is aware that before the war the Nazi party of Great Britain had offices at this address; and whether he will keep a careful watch on the society's activities?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Attention has been paid for a number of years to the activities of this so-called society, which is in fact a propaganda bureau run by a single individual, whose influence and importance are negligible. Attention will continue to be paid to him, but it has been the clearly expressed wish of Parliament that there should be as little interference as possible with the free expression of opinion, and I have no power to put a stop to this individual's activities merely because his propaganda is abhorrent to all right-minded people. I presume that the second part of the Question refers to the National Workers' Party of Great Britain. This organisation rented two rooms from the Britons Publishing Society from the beginning of 1936 until the beginnig of 1937, when it ceased to function. It also bought some propaganda material from the society.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this society is still circulating to people in this country the well-known forgery, the "Protocols of Zion," and attempting to prove that the Jews, and not Hitler, are responsible for this war? Is he aware also that the man who is now president of the society was interned for three


years, in South Africa? Will he give consideration to the spread of literature of this kind?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly I will keep those points in mind, but, if I may say so, I would suggest that my hon. Friend should not work himself up into too nervous a condition about this body—if it can be called a body.

Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are anxious over the desire of some Members to get people locked up, not because they have done anything but because they have propounded views which are unpalatable to those members?

Mr. Morrison: I entirely agree, and I think it is particularly unfortunate when those demands come from the Liberal benches. The House may be sure that in a proper way I will keep the Liberal flag flying at the Home Office.

Mr. Holdsworth: Will my right hon. Friend trust the common sense of the British people?

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my sole anxiety in this matter is public security?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RESERVE CONSTABLES

Mr. Robertson: asked the Home Secretary why middle-aged War Reserve policemen, who have given excellent service since the outbreak of war, are being transferred to the Armed Forces and industry, in accordance with an Order dated 10th September, 1943, when it would be in the national interest if younger policemen were called up, leaving these older men to take their places.

Mr. H. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as to the scope of the Metropolitan Police Order to which he refers. It deals with only a part of the arrangements for the release of men to the Armed Forces and to industry, to which I referred in reply to his Question on 2nd December. Under those arrangements the Commissioner of Police has already taken steps to make available a large number of the younger members of his Force, both regulars and War Reserve constables. The responsibilities of the police are such that it is

impossible to spare all the young and active men, and it was therefore decided that to make up the total figure of men to be released some men over military age must be included.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CO-OPTED MEMBERS)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Home Secretary the number of local councils whose personnel now consists of more than 25 per cent. co-opted members.

Mr. H. Morrison: As stated on 1st December, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to collect statistics from over 8,500 local bodies would involve undue labour, but for the purpose of getting some sample figures I have obtained information from the London County Council and from the Metropolitan boroughs. In 9 of the 28 Metropolitan borough councils the number of co-opted members exceeds 25 per cent. of the total membership: the percentage for the London County Council is between 13 and 14.

Mr. Etherton: Does the Home Secretary not agree that this shows a very dangerous tendency towards making our local government bodies undemocratic? Will he bear in mind the necessity of returning, as soon as possible, to representative government on these bodies?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that it is not healthy; but it has been an inevitable consequence of war conditions. As soon as we can get it right, I shall be as pleased as my hon. friend will be.

Mr. De La Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that I am very anxious that he should do it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATION 3 (CONVICTIONS)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Home Secretary how many people have been fined in 1943, or otherwise punished, for careless talk?

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to persons convicted of offences under Regulation 3 of the Defence Regulations, which deals with the unauthorised obtaining and


communicating of information useful to the enemy. During the first nine months of 1943, of the 54 persons found guilty of offences under this Regulation, 34 were fined, 13 were sentenced to imprisonment and seven were dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act.

Major Taylor: While accepting the rebuke for the wording of my Question, might I ask whether my right hon. Friend will give full publicity to these figures as a warning to others?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTOXICATING LIQUOR (YOUNG PERSONS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Home Secretary the number of persons who have been convicted between 2nd September, 1939, and the most recent available date of breaches of the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons Under Eighteen) Act, 1923; the number of those who were fined, and the number of those whose cases were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act?

Mr. H. Morrison: From the beginning of September, 1939, to 30th September, 1943, the number of persons found guilty was 175; the number fined was 137; and the number of cases dismissed or bound over under the Probation of Offenders Act was 38.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend circularise chief constables on the provisions of this Act and suggest that they remind the public of those provisions?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but the chief constables are very familiar with the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE (PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Home Secretary what are the number and names of those in the Public Relations Department of the Home Office?

Mr. H. Morrison: The number of persons employed in the Public Relations Division, which serves the two Departments—the Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security—for which I am responsible, is 21, of whom two give only part-time service. The officer in charge of the

division is Mr. George Griffith. As regards the persons employed in the division, including members of the executive and clerical grades, it is not the practice to publish the names of all those civil servants who at a particular date are assigned to a particular section of Departmental work.

Mr. Etherton: Does the Home Secretary not think that 21 is rather a less modest number than the modest size to which he referred?

Mr. Morrison: My reference was well justified. Here are two important State Departments, and the whole of the public relations staff is 21, two of whom are part-timers. I think it is most meritorious.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the name of George Griffiths. Is that George Griffiths, Member of this Honourable House?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that some years ago there were no public relations officers in any Government Department regarded as having a Ministerial function?

Mr. Morrison: That is true, but there are now, and I think they have very much improved public relations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (ARMED FORCES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of further action recently taken in Worcester and other towns that has resulted in the cancellation of Sunday entertainments for the troops; how many similar actions this year have been reported to him; and under what circumstances and what kind of proof he needs before further consideration is given to the question of securing the abolition or suspension of restrictions on Sunday entertainments where there is a recognised public demand and need?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have seen reports this month of five instances (including the one referred to by my hon. Friend) in which Sunday entertainments had to be cancelled. There may have been others. As my hon. Friend knows, my own proposals for dealing with this controversial


matter were rejected by this House, and the House having taken that decision it would not be right for me to attempt to reopen the question unless I were assured that the House wished to reconsider its decision.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply more specifically to the latter part of the Question, where I ask him what proof he needs that the opinion of this House has changed; and is he aware that there is a strong body of opinion in the country in favour of these Sunday entertainments?

Mr. Morrison: It is difficult to be precise, but I should want firm evidence that there was an absolute and clear majority in the House wishing for a change and that none of these hon. Members would get into the wrong Lobby under pressure at the last minute.

Mr. Sorensen: How are we to find out exactly whether the opinion of this House has changed? Is it not possible for this House to indicate in some way that its past folly has now been cleared away?

Mr. Holdsworth: Not a bit.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARWEN BY-ELECTION

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Sir Frederick Hindle, Deputy Regional Commissioner, signed the nomination form of the Government candidate in the Darwen by-election, now proceeding; and what action he proposes to take to prevent any violation in such circumstances of any rule, custom, or practice?

Mr. H. Morrison: Since Sir Frederick Hindle signed the nomination form in his capacity of President of the Darwen Liberal Association and since Deputy Regional Commissioners do not rank as members of the Civil Service, I cannot see that there has been any violation of any rule, custom or practice.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to infer that the Chair-

man of the local Liberal Association signed the nomination of a Tory candidate for Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: That has nothing to do with me.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question is not strictly accurate, inasmuch as the election is not proceeding but the Conservative candidate has been returned with a majority of 70?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIMNEY-SWEEPS (SHORTAGE)

Mr. Kendall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the shortage of chimney-sweeps in the Borough of Grantham, seeing that there remains only one semi-disabled skilled chimney-sweep for the whole town and surrounding district; and whether, in the interests of public safety, he will reconsider his recent refusal to interfere in the matter, since both the War Office and the Ministry of Labour are unable to consider applications for the release of skilled chimney-sweeps until his department first gives its recommendation?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the shortage of chimney sweeps in the Cheltenham area and the consequent risk of fires and danger to health, he will take steps to ensure that no more chimney sweeps in the district shall be taken away from their present occupation and take appropriate action to support applications for the release of ex-chimney sweeps of the lower medical grades from the forces?

Mr. H. Morrison: As far as I can see, my only possible concern with this matter is from the fire prevention point of view. As to this, on such information as I have regarding the incidence of chimney fires, I should not feel justified in recommending the release from the forces or from important national work of skilled chimney sweeps. I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour and National Service will be ready to give consideration to representations for deferment of national service of chimney sweeps where there is evidence of real difficulty.

Mr. Kendall: Would not the Minister agree that a man in the Army, being a male servant to an officer, is doing less


work of national importance than he would be if he were doing chimney sweeping?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion and not a fact.

Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. Originally I put my Question to the Minister of Health, and in his answer the Home Secretary said that his Department is only concerned to a minor degree, and could it not be transferred to the Ministry to whom it is of great concern?

Mr. Morrison: I imagine that it was because my Department was the nearest that could be got to it. I understand that the Ministry of Health has no responsibility whatever.

Mr. Lipson: It has.

Mr. Morrison: I am told not, and the matter is very difficult.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that under the Public Health Act, 1875, it is the duty of local authorities to abate a nuisance, and surely unswept chimneys constitute a nuisance?

Mr. Kendall: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIANS (NATIONALITY)

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to announce his decision on the proposal that former Austrians shall in future be described in their police registration certificates as Austrians and not as Germans, or as Germans, formerly Austrians?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have decided that any alien now registered as German who can furnish to the police with whom he is registered satisfactory evidence that he possessed Austrian citizenship when Germany annexed Austria may, on application, be registered as Austrian.

Mr. Mander: Is the Home Secretary aware that this decision will give the greatest satisfaction to the many Austrians in this country who are loyal supporters of the United Nations?

Mr. Morrison: I am very glad that my relations with my hon. Friend have now been cemented and healed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (INQUIRY)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to comply with the request of the council of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to institute an inquiry into the administration of the watch committee of the council and, in particular, into its conduct with regard to the disposal of a fire engine?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I decided to comply with this request, and Mr. Roland Burrows, K.C., was good enough to accept my invitation to hold an inquiry into this matter. While preparations were being made for the holding of this Inquiry, other allegations of a serious character were brought to my notice reflecting on the administration of branches of the Civil Defence Services. It will, I think, be in the public interest to extend the scope of the proposed Inquiry so as to enable these further allegations to be investigated. Certain preliminary inquiries are being made but I hope that it will be possible to begin the Inquiry into all the matters requiring investigation early in the New Year.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Non-Provided Schools

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any estimate has been made of the cost which would be involved in bringing the buildings of non-provided schools throughout the country up to the standard required for provided schools; and what is the probable number of new non-provided schools which are likely to be required and the estimated cost of their provision?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The extent of the alterations, improvements and new construction required for this purpose cannot be accurately determined until the development plans have been prepared by local education authorities, and the proportion of the cost falling to the managers and public funds respectively will not be known until the managers have had an opportunity of exercising the options offered to them under the Education Bill. In the circumstances any estimate made at this stage of the cost involved in respect of the whole range of non-provided schools must necessarily be tentative.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this question of cost is a vital matter in considering the proposals of the Bill relating to non-provided schools and is he aware that the estimated cost of modernising many non-provided schools throughout the country even with the 50 per cent. grant, and building the necessary new schools, is beyond the means of many non-provided school managers?

Mr. Butler: That is a very big question and one which is a matter of opinion, but I am, of course, aware that the new proposals will involve certain burdens for the managers.

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he made an estimate to me some little time ago of the cost of this proposal, and is that estimate still holding good?

Mr. Butler: Anything I say to the hon. Member and to the House holds good.

Itinerant Van-Dwellers (Children)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children belonging to itinerant van-dwellers who have received any substantial education this year; and whether, with regard to the prosecution of parents for non-attendance of their children, any fixed period of such attendance is prescribed as a minimum?

Mr. Butler: I regret that the informa-asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part, the prosecution of parents for the non-attendance of their children at school is primarily a matter of taking proceedings under the school attendance by-laws which, generally speaking, require whole-time attendance at school. It is, however, necessary to bear in mind the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which gives relief from proceedings under that Section in cases where a child of the type referred to makes not less than 200 school attendances from October to March.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that actually the school attendances of most of these children is at best intermittent, partly owing to the nomadic habits of their parents in moving and partly owing to their being sent away dirty or verminous, and will he take steps to see that they receive more education?

Mr. Butler: If my hon. and gallant Friend will study the new proposals which I have put before the House, he will see that these matters, among others, are referred to in the draft Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rents (Old Age Pensioners)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Health the reasonable rent figure for two old age pensioners in the Barnsley district; and the high and low rent rules in that district?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): Under the existing Supplementary Pensions Regulations the question whether the rent in any case is reasonable or not is determined in accordance with the rules recommended by the local advisory committee. As the rules recommended by the Barnsley Committee are of considerable length and complication they do not permit of any figures being given and I am sending a copy of them to my hon. Friend.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister send a copy to me, because this matter affects my area?

Mr. Willink: With pleasure.

Mr. Griffiths: Thank you very much.

Rural Workers' Cottages (Re-conditioning)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health how many houses were reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, up to the outbreak of hostilities in September, 1939?

Mr. Willink: Approximately 19,500.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health how many cottages have been reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, during the war period September, 1939, to November, 1943; and whether any estimate has been made of the number which can be made habitable at the present time?

Mr. Willink: Approximately 3,300 cottages were reconditioned between September, 1939, and November, 1943. No estimate can be given of the number of cottages which can be made habitable at the present time.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the question of cottages and houses for rural workers—indeed, for all workers—is one of great priority?

Mr. Willink: I realise that it is one of great urgency and importance. The whole question is being considered by the Hob-house Committee.

Mr. De la Bère: But is it not desirable that the Government should specially comprehend this matter?

Mass Production

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department is preparing plans for the mass production, outside the building industry, of emergency housing to meet post-war requirements?

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on this subject on 14th December by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio.

Sir I. Albery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept responsibility for this type of building, or is it the responsibility of some other Departments?

Mr. Willink: Quite clearly it should be planned by the several responsible Ministers in consultation.

Sir I. Albery: Can my right hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on; we are going very slowly.

Small Dwellings (Acquisition)

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention after the war to arrange for a continuation of loans through the Public Works Loans Committee to local authorities which have adopted the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to enable them to assist persons desiring to purchase houses for their own occupation?

Mr. Willink: I do not contemplate any change in the pre-war arrangements under which local authorities can borrow from the Public Works Loan Board for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase in the cost of building houses and the consequent increase in their prices, he will

introduce legislation to amend the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, so that the maximum price of a house that may be purchased under the Act is raised from £800 to £1,200 which was the figure in the original Act?

Mr. Willink: The point is being examined by the Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Felix Pole, and I will certainly consider what action I ought to take to adapt this Act to postwar circumstances in the light of the Subcommittee's recommendations.

Mr. McEntee: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that old houses, in addition to new ones, that cost £800 before the war are now being sold for £1,000 or more?

Mr. Willink: I am sure that that point is being considered by the Sub-committee.

Sites

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that all the 100,000 sites approved far post-war housing will not be interfered with by the construction of new main traffic arteries, the widening of existing roads or the construction of secondary roads, nor will they prevent or be interfered with by the development of green belts?

Mr. Willink: Steps are taken to ensure that all sites purchased by local authorities for housing purposes are free from objection on planning grounds. The housing land at present in possession of local authorities amounts to about 10,000 acres.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

National Health Insurance

Mr. Ritson: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed in the early future to consider the position of National Health Insurance contributors who have for long periods been in receipt of disablement allowances and are without other resources?

Mr. Willink: The position of the persons to whom my hon. Friend refers is being considered in connection with the Government's general proposals on social insurance. I cannot make any statement on the matter in advance of the White Paper.

Mr. Ritson: Is the Minister aware that these people who are suffering not merely from sickness but from poverty are drawing only about one-third of the amount granted to old age pensioners?

Mr. Willink: The facts are known, but I do not think I can add to my answer. The whole matter is being dealt with and a White Paper has been promised for an early date.

Tubercular Patients, Liverpool

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health (1) how many extra beds are now required in Liverpool hospitals and sanatoria to accommodate those persons known to be in need of treatment for tuberculosis and for whom accommodation cannot be found;
(2) whether, having in mind the serious shortage of accommodation for Liverpool citizens suffering from tuberculosis and in need of specialised treatment for that complaint, he will consider reinstating for this purpose all accommodation formerly used in the treatment of this disease which, owing to the war, was taken over for general and emergency purposes?

Mr. Willink: I understand that the number of tuberculosis cases in Liverpool awaiting institutional treatment is about 140. I am informed that the Corporation proposes to provide a further 100 beds at Sparrow Hall Hospital, and as stated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 2nd December, I have approved an extension at Fazakerley Hospital designed to provide another 48 beds. It is not practicable to restore the same accommodation for tuberculosis as there was before the emergency, but I am advised that the extra provision which I have mentioned, together with other arrangements that the Corporation has made from time to time during the war period, will bring the total accommodation for treatment of tuberculosis very close to the pre-war level.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply. I would like to give this notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Public Assistance Institutions (Matrons)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that his inspectors when visiting public assistance

institutions expect matrons, who are State registered nurses, to be responsible for the direction of the nursing of any inmates who fall sick pending their removal; and if he will further consider the position of such matrons in relation to the Rushcliffe recommendations?

Mr. Willink: I see no reason to modify the reply I gave my hon. Friend last week.

Mr. Messer: In view of the fact that the second Report makes the position more difficult, will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation, so that we can reach finality?

Mr. Willink: I shall be happy to consider any such request.

Post-Vaccinal Encephalitis

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Health how many cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis came to the notice of his department in 1941, 1942 and this year; how many of these were serving soldiers; and how many cases in air personnel and in naval personnel came to the notice of his department in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and this year?

Mr. Willink: The numbers of cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis in 1941 and 1942 were 6 and 19, and the provisional figure to date for 1943 is 2. Of these 6 cases in 1941, 5 in 1942, and 1 in 1943 were serving soldiers. In reply to the last part of the question there were no cases among R.A.F. personnel in the five years mentioned; and among naval personnel there were no cases in 1939 and 1941, 1 case in 1940, 4 in 1942, and 1 during the present year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury has any control over the Foreign Office apart from questions of establishment?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. Expenditure from Votes accounted for by the Foreign Office is of course subject, like other expenditure from public funds, to the normal control of the Treasury, but, apart from that, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury has no concern with foreign policy as such.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (CHEVRONS AND WOUND STRIPES)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Prime Minister when chevrons and wound stripes will be issued to those qualified; and, in view of the fact that those granted in the last war were subsequently taken away, whether he can state the intention in this respect with regard to those awarded for this war?

Mr. Attlee: Chevrons and wound stripes have been manufactured and issued to Departments up to the total demanded. Instructions for issue and wear are in course of preparation. It is the intention that the point referred to in the second part of the Question shall be considered after the cessation of hostilities.

Sir J. Lucas: Shall we have a guarantee that they will be issued before they are taken away?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Wages

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the increased wage which has been announced to farm workers and the consideration which has been given to the question of a revision of prices to meet this increased cost, he will give an assurance that due consideration will be given to the case of the small farms of approximately 100 acres, since the increase will more greatly affect their earning capacity than that of the larger farms of approximately 1,000 acres?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Although I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that the wage increase bears particularly hardly on the small farm, the Government have always been anxious to assist small farmers as much as possible to overcome their special difficulties. Measures such as the acreage payments on potatoes, wheat and rye, and the marginal production scheme have been introduced for this purpose. The position is kept under review; the increase in the acreage payment on wheat from the 1944 harvest, recently announced, is for example intended to benefit the small man. A general price increase would not be a suitable or acceptable method, since

amongst other disadvantages it would not differentially benefit the smaller farmer.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the increase in wages for the farm worker? Further, is he not also aware of the pledges given by responsible Government spokesmen that these matters should be adjusted? Is not this another matter that the Government have specially failed to comprehend?

Water Supplies (Grants)

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the Minister of Agriculture what grants or other assistance are obtainable to farmers desiring to extend their water supplies to grazing fields?

Mr. Hudson: In approved cases a farmer may obtain a grant up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the net cost of extending water supplies to grazing fields provided that the supply will lead to an increase of food production, either by enabling additional grassland to be ploughed or by improving the stock-carrying capacity of the grassland.

Mrs. Wright: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that farmers are aware of this and are taking the fullest possible advantage of it?

Mr. Hudson: I do not know about their being aware of it, but I do know that we have more applications than materials with which to comply with those applications.

Electric Pumps

Mrs. Wright: asked the Minister of Agriculture in how many instances farms have been supplied with electricity; and in how many of these cases electric power is used for pumping water?

Mr. Hudson: I regret that the information is not available.

Mrs. Wright: Can the Minister make this information available in order that we might know where to start in providing water and electricity for the farming community?

Mr. De la Bère: Has not this always been a scandal? Why not get on with the job?

Mrs. Wright: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he favours the provision of electrically driven pumps to


farms to be used for pumping water supplies; and whether his Ministry has any information on the best types of electric pumps available?

Mr. Hudson: The question whether electricity is the most suitable motive power for any particular pumping plant depends on the circumstances, but the electrically driven pump has the advantage that it can be automatically controlled. The work to be done determines the best type of pump to be used, but my Department does not undertake to advise individuals on this matter.

Mrs. Wright: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that farmers need guidance and help in this technical matter? Will he see that a proper survey is made and give some advice to farmers?

Mr. Hudson: The farmer can apply to his local war agricultural committee, who will put him in touch with the local electricity company, who are the best people to advise him.

Technical and Agricultural Education

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there is any provision for technical education for agricultural workers; and whether he will examine, with the President of the Board of Education, the practicability, either now or after the war, of providing evening classes in agriculture at local schools in country districts, particularly for young persons between 13 and 18 years of age, and advanced agricultural education elsewhere for those who show special aptitude at local evening classes?

Mr. Hudson: The schemes of technical development now being carried ou by the county war agricultural executive committee extend to all classes engaged in food production, including agricultural workers; in most counties, however, institutional training cannot be provided owing to the more urgent need for technical advisory work in the immediate interests of food production. As to the second part of the Question, I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education matters of principle relating to the policy for agricultural education after the war.

International Food Conference (Recommendations)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to maintain the fertility of the soil, to increase the quantity and improve the quality of our livestock, and to achieve the balanced system of mixed rotational farming recommended by the International Food Conference at Hot Springs?

Mr. Hudson: It would not be possible to give a comprehensive reply to my hon. Friend's Question within the scope of a Parliamentary answer. A general indication of the measures that are being taken for the improvement of our livestock and the maintenance of fertility, and of the Government's attitude towards the Hot Springs Resolutions was given in my speech in the House on 28th July last.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the soil of this country is steadily deteriorating, and is it not a matter of urgent necessity to increase our head of livestock?

Mr. Hudson: I agree that it is a matter of urgent necessity to increase the head of livestock in the country, but I would not agree that there is any appreciable evidence of decrease in soil fertility.

Mr. De la Bère: Why is this matter treated so casually?

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL AREAS (PUBLIC SERVICES)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether the development plans now being submitted by rural district councils include the completion of water and sewerage services in rural parishes in all appropriate cases; whether adequate Treasury grants will be continued; and whether provision is also to be made for cheap electricity in rural parishes generally for lighting, domestic and agricultural uses?

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend has in mind the short-term housing programmes now being submitted by rural district councils, the possibilities of providing water, sewerage and other public services are borne in mind in selecting the site. Public services will be provided for the new houses wherever they are reasonably available. I have recently notified the authorities that I am prepared to examine proposals for urgently needed post-war


schemes for water supply and sewerage and sewage disposal. In reply to the second part of the Question, the Government recognise the special difficulties as regards piped water and sewerage in rural areas, and will consider sympathetically at the appropriate stage, whether it is possible in suitable cases to ease the financial burden of the capital cost of schemes for sizeable groups of houses. The third part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. and learned Friend urging upon the Minister of Fuel and Power the imperative necessity for having cheap electricity in these rural areas?

Mr. Willink: I will consider that point.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health how much has been spent out of the rates by rural district councils upon housing, water supply and sewerage schemes, respectively, in the most recent appropriate period?

Mr. Willink: The expenditure out of rates, block grant and other income not allocated to specific services by rural district councils on housing, water supply and sewerage schemes for the year ended 31st March, 1940 (the latest year available) was £520,026, £581,131, £1,115,623 respectively.

Sir P. Hurd: Would it not be more desirable to give figures for a period of five or ten years before the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SERVICE INJURY

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now give a reply concerning the case of Constable W. A. Sherlock, who claims recognition of his disability as a war-time injury, which was referred to the Home Office in June last and subsequently passed to his Department in August?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): This man made a very belated claim based on a slight strain which he said he had sustained in August, 1940. While extensive inquiries have not produced confirmation of the incident, I have decided on the information now available to issue a war service injury certificate in respect of the strain, the

effects of which, however, are shown by recent medical examination to cause no incapacity at present. I am giving the hon. Member the full facts in writing.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Retired Civil Servants (Re-employment)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to modify the provisions laid down in the 1834 Superannuation Act relating to the conditions under which retired Government officials are reemployed, in view of the fact that those conditions are less favourable than the conditions granted to recipients of service pensions who are recalled and are, in fact, discouraging retired officials whose experience would be valuable to the State, from accepting re-employment in Government departments?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): No, Sir. I have no evidence that present arrangements are having the discouraging effect suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brown: On what grounds does the Minister justify this extraordinary disparity of treatment between two branches of the Service? Why should there be one rule for the Army and the Navy and another for the Civil Service on precisely the same point?

Mr. Assheton: The circumstances are different. In any case it is not possible to discuss it adequately by Question and answer.

Mr. Brown: I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Public Social Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Turton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the figures of expenditure on public social services in 1941 and 1942?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures for 1941 (or latest available year) and 1942. These should be compared with those published in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th January, 1943, in respect of 1940 and 1941.

Following is the statement:




PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES.


Total Expenditure under Certain Acts of Parliament.


Other than expenditure out of loans for capital purposes or out of capital receipts.


NOTE.—This statement gives the expenditure on Public Social Services in 1941 and 1942, the latest years for which details are available, which would have been included in Part I of the return to be published in continuation of Command 5906 of November, 1938. Reference should be made to Command 5906 for comparable expenditure in earlier years and for information as to the basis on which the return is compiled, but it should be observed that the explanatory notes given in that return are not now accurate in all respects.


Service.
England &amp; Wales.
Scotland.
1941 (or latest available year) Great Britain.
Total number of persons directly benefiting from the expenditure included in Column 5.


Financial Year commencing 1st April.
Financial Year commencing 1st April.


1941 (or latest available year).
1942 (estimated).
1941 (or latest available year).
1942 (estimated).


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)



£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
England and Wales.
Scotland.


(a) Unemployment Insurance &amp; Unemployment Assistance Acts—









(i) Unemployment Benefit, etc., General Scheme
7,270
4,803
1,425
1,213
8,695
Not available
Not available


(ii) Unemployment Benefit, etc., Agricultural Scheme
327
246
42
34
369
Not available
Not available


(iii) Unemployment Allowances
3,207
1,521
904
455
4,111
Not available
Not available


(iv) Prevention &amp; Relief of Distress
1,453
694
93
44
1,546
Not available
Not available


(b) National Health Insurance Acts
41,316†
44,750†
4,816†
5,308†
46,132
20,655,000*
2,362,000*


(c) Widows, Orphans &amp; Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts
53,594‡
54,136‡
6,231‡
6,309‡
59,825
2,417,000
290,000


(d) Old Age Pensions Acts
45,604
47,260
5,236
5,371
50,840
1,951,000
224,000


(e) Old Age &amp; Widows' Pensions Act, 1940 (Supplementary Pensions).
26,702
36,129
2,823
3,665
29,525
Not available
Not available


(f) War Pensions Acts and the Ministry of Pensions Act (i.e. War of
1914–18).
30,935
30,269
3,411
3,342
34,346
673,350
74,200


(g) Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force &amp; Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939; Personal
Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939; Military Training Act, 1939; Reserve &amp; Auxiliary
Forces Act, 1939
13,224
23,136
1,471
2,762
14,695
481,48055,300


(h) Education Acts
113,000
119,242
16,267
17,072
129,267
Not available
898,803


(i) Physical Training &amp; Recreation Act
41
9
6
4
47
Not available
Not available


(j) Acts relating to Approved Schools
1,173
1,339
201
234
1,374
9,478
2,769

Service.
England &amp; Wales.
Scotland.
1941 (or latest available year) Great Britain.
Total number of persons directly benefiting from the expenditure included in Column 5.


Financial Year commencing 1st April.
Financial Year commencing 1st April.

1941 (or latest available year).
1942 (estimated).
1941 (or latest available year).
1942 (estimated).


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)





£000
£000
£000
£000
£000
England and Wales
Scotland.


(k) Public Health Acts so far as they relate to:—









(i) Hospital &amp; Treatment of Disease
…
…
18,771
Not available
2,144
Not available
20,915
Not available
Not available


(ii) Maternity &amp; Child Welfare Work
…
…
4,328
717
6,706
Not available
Not available


(l) Midwives Acts
…
…
1,661
Not available
Not available


(m) Housing Acts
…
…
45,600
8,961
54,561
—
—


(n) Acts relating to the Relief of the Poor
…
…
43,691
5,054
48,745
1,157,262
106,000


(o) Lunacy &amp; Mental Deficiency Treatment Acts
…
…
3,166
1,919
9,160
132,963
21,600


(p) Mental Deficiency Acts
…
…
4,075
Not available


TOTALS
…
459,138

61,721

520,859




NOTES.


* Numbers given are those of insured persons at 31st December, 1941. See paragraph 6 on page 5 of Command 5906.


† The figures given in columns 1 and 3 and cloumns 2 and 4 relate to the calendar years 1942 and 1943 respectively.


‡ These figures refer to expenditure from the Pensions Account, the Special Pensions Account, the Pensions (Scotland) Account and the Special Pensions (Scotland) Account. Surpluses and deficits in these Accounts are dealt with by transfers to and from the Treasury Pensions Account and the Treasury Special Pensions Account which cover both England and Wales and Scotland and into which annual contributions are to be paid by the Exchequer. For the financial year 1941 the amount of the Exchequer contribution was £21,525,000.

Income Tax (Age Relief)

Mr. Frankel: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what regulation that part of the income of a person over 65 years of age which exceeds £500 a year is subject to a tax of 15s. in the £1 instead of 10s.?

Mr. Assheton: The provisions relating to relief from tax—generally known as age relief—in favour of persons of over 65 years of age with income less than £500 are to be found in Section 15 (2) of the Finance Act, 1925, as amended by Section 8 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940. This Section contains the marginal provision to which my hon. Friend's Question relates and which far from imposing an additional burden gives relief in cases where the income is just over £500 and where in consequence the taxpayer misses the full benefit of the age relief; but for this relief there would be a sudden jump in the liability where the income just exceeds £500.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS TRADE

Mr. Higgs: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what preparation his Department is making to re-establish overseas trade?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): It is impossible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to give all the details of my Department's activities. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the Debate in this House on 27th July last, and particularly to my statement that the Department is engaged in the production of reports of two kinds—(1) geographical, upon individual markets, and (2) industrial, to indicate to particular export industries the conditions they are likely to find in all the more important markets. These reports are being continuously revised, so that the final product may be as up-to-date as possible. At the same time discussions are taking place with a large number of industries in order that views may be exchanged about their particular export trade problems, and to ensure that the services of the Department are on lines that will afford the maximum assistance to exporters. A number of the Department's overseas officers have already been brought home for consultation, and this practice is being

continued and developed. Moreover, a senior officer of the Department has recently been in the Middle East conferring with the Department's officers in that area and it is intended that similar conferences shall take place in other parts of the world.

Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Debate that he refers to took place five months ago? Can he give some further information on what the Department has been doing with regard to approaching business organisations in order that he can arrange for the future development of overseas trade after the war?

Mr. Johnstone: I have included that in my answer pretty fully. Discussions have taken place with 90 separate industries.

ILLNESS OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Attlee: I have a statement about the Prime Minister to give to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House on Tuesday on his return from Cairo that he had left the Prime Minister to see the work of the Conferences through to the end. He left him in good health, though perhaps a little tired. I have to inform the House that the following bulletin is about to be issued from to, Downing Street:
The Prime Minister has been in bed for some days with a cold. A patch of pneumonia has now developed in the left lung. The general condition is as satisfactory as can be expected.
It is signed Moran, D. Evans Bedford (Brigadier), R. J. V. Pulvertaft (Lieut.-Colonel), and is dated 16th December. A further bulletin will be issued daily.
The House will be sorry to learn of the Prime Minister's illness, and I am sure it will be the desire of all of us that we shall send our best wishes for his recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I may add that highly qualified specialists are in attendance. The House will observe that the bulletin is signed not only by Lord Moran but also by Brigadier Bedford and Lieut.-Colonel Pulvertaft, who are Consulting Physician and Director of Pathology respectively to the Middle East Forces. I can assure the House that every modern facility is available on the spot.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business on the resumption of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business when we meet again in the New Year will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill. If agreeable to the House, we would like to obtain the concluding stages also.
Second and third Sitting Days—Second Reading of the Education Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Leader of the House say when it is probable that a Motion will be tabled with regard to the provision of additional Judges? May I also ask whether consideration has been given to the suggestion made recently that the Order Paper should contain an intimation of the hon. Member whom the Speaker contemplates calling on the Adjournment Motion each day?

Mr. Eden: With regard to the first Question, I have no information. With regard to the second, we are considering that matter, and I hope to make a statement.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Leader of the House give any indication when the Government will be able to introduce the Bill for the improvement of the pensions of State servants?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he hopes to be ready with the Bill pretty soon after the House resumes.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will there be any opportunity of discussing the Oliver Report on detention barracks when the House resumes?

Mr. Eden: I have had no representations about that. If they are made, I will consider them.

Captain Cobb: If it appears that a great many Members wish to take part in the Debate on the Education Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the time for the Debate?

Mr. Eden: We had two days' Debate on the White Paper, and I thought that two more days on the Second Reading of the Bill would be a fair arrangement.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to make a statement with regard to a question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Ministry yesterday. I said that I had sent him a case. I am sorry that I put it personally. I really meant that I had sent it to the Ministry and not to the Parliamentary Secretary. He stated that he had not heard anything about it, and I felt sure that it had gone to him. It had not gone to him. This case arose in June, 1942, and it has been going on all the time. I got a letter from the Ministry in October. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for jumping at him so hastily.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Captain Henry Carpenter Longhurst, for the County of Middlesex (Acton Division).

SELECTION (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (SCOTLAND) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, they had selected the following Twenty Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Francis Beattie, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Erskine-Hill, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir Edmund Findlay, Sir John Graham Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. McKie, Mr. Joseph Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Mathers, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Major Neven-Spence, Lord William Scott, Captain W. T. Shaw, Sir R. W. Smith, Mr. Snadden, Mr. Henderson Stewart and Mr. Maclean Watson.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Sixteen Members to be the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Broad, Mr. John Campbell, Major Sir George Davies, Mr. W. H. Green, Sir George Hume, Major Lloyd, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Logan, Captain Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Pickthorn, Sir Stanley Reed, Admiral Sir Percy Royds, Sir Alexander Russell, Rear-Admiral Sir


Murray Sueter, Mr. Wedderburn and Mr. Henry White.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Select Committee on Standing Orders under Standing Order 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Frankel, Sir Austin Hudson, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Major Leighton, Sir Frank Sanderson and Mr. Tinker.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That in pursuance of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed from the Chairmen's Panel Sir Robert Young and Sir Cyril Entwistle to be the two Members whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Resolution reported from the Committee of Selection: That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the rights of the parties to leases of requisitioned land with respect to the making good of damage occurring during the requisition, and for purposes connected therewith."—[Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Bill [Lords].

[Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 5].

BILL PRESENTED

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL

"to make provision for the reinstatement in civil employment of certain persons who are, or have been, in the service of the Crown or in a civil defence force; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid."; presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin, supported by Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Sir James Grigg, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Sir William Jowitt, the Attorney-General, and Mr. McCorquodale; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day. To be printed [Bill 5].

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of s. 1 of 2 and 3 GEO. 6. c. 9. 10 and 11 GEO. 5. c. 50.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes: I should like to say a word or two upon this Clause in order to give to the Committee any information that may be available in regard to the position of the three main activities of the Miners' Welfare Fund—pit-head baths, canteens, and rehabilitation centres. It would take too long to-day, although I should have liked to do so, to touch on all the other activities for which the Commission is responsible, such as Scholarships, recreational schemes, convalescent homes and others.
The construction of pit-head baths was stopped in the middle of the programme owing to war exigencies. I should like, however, to let the Committee know that there are now 362 pit-head baths completed. That covers 419,146 men or a percentage figure of 57. The collieries remaining to be dealt with, including 660 which employ fewer than 50 men each, total 1326 and cover 322,057 men, or 43 per cent. Under that last group come 12 baths which were left unfinished owing to war requirements, covering 13,334 men, and four baths for 1,710 men now being


completed because they are essential for coal production. While the Miners' Welfare Commission are most anxious and eager to get on with and complete the baths programme, it is impossible in war-time conditions to do so owing to the shortness of labour and material. It is also doubtful whether the special equipment required for baths would be obtainable, the factories making it having been turned over to munitions work. I should like however to assure the Committee that we shall press on with it at the earliest possible moment and that we have schemes in hand and waiting to be set in motion directly that is possible.
A word on the canteen position. It will be remembered that the Government asked the Miners' Welfare Commission to instal canteens throughout the coalfields, and this has been and is being done. Out of 1,028 collieries employing more than 50 men each, 893 employing 95 per cent. of all the men engaged in the industry have canteens now operating. Of these 893, full meals are served at the canteens of 415 collieries employing 50 per cent. of all the mineworkers. When the canteens under construction or in preparation have been completed the percentages will be 98 and 70 respectively. The Commission's officers have been in touch with all the remainder and arrangements are being made as and where possible to carry out those which are still required. It is always a principle adopted that the canteens erected and installed are of the type desired by the men in the colliery concerned. The use made of the canteens, although not as full as might be desired, compares not unfavourably I understand with that made of factory canteens, if account is taken of all the men using the canteens whether for snap or snacks as well as those taking full meals. The proportion taking full meals averages only about 30 per cent. I would like, in connection with the canteen programme, to thank the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Works for all their help and co-operation. The carrying into effect of the programme has meant an enormous amount of work on the part of the staff of the Commission which is very attenuated, and it is progressing satisfactorily considering the difficult conditions under which we are working. The main difficulty in regard to canteens, as in regard to rehabilitation, on which I shall touch in a moment, is that of labour. Even

if we get the labour, it is sometimes difficult to ensure its retention, and this inevitably throws out the whole programme of work. We are, however, in touch with the Ministry of Labour on this head, and we hope to get matters a little more stabilised in that connection.
The third large programme, of which I am sure the Committee would like to hear, is that of rehabilitation centres. This big scheme is also one which the Government have asked the Commission to take up. Two centres are now in operation. The number of centres in preparation, one being non-resident, is five, and the remainder, to cover the whole of the coalfields, are being provided in collaboration with the hospitals in the areas. Those which are being catered for directly by the Miners' Welfare Commission cover 64 per cent. of the industry, and those which are being catered for by the hospitals, in collaboration with the Miners' Welfare Commission, total 36 per cent. It may interest the Committee to know that I am officially opening a centre at Talygarn for the South Wales, Forest of Dean, Somerset and Bristol area on Saturday and we hope that it will be a very satisfactory installation. In the rehabilitation programme the main difficulty lies in getting medical officers and staff for the various installations which we are organising.
I should like to take one more moment to thank on behalf of the Commission all concerned for the help which they have given us in this work. Not only Members of Parliament for mining constituencies, but leaders in the industry; both men and owners have co-operated wholeheartedly during the period in which I have had the privilege of being chairman of this Commission—now nearly 10 years. The members of the Commission and staff, the 25 District Committees and the very large number of sub-committees (some 1,400) all feel that it is very fine work and are grateful to be able to take a part in it. We have of course our difficulties here and there but throughout the whole length and breadth of the coalfields the co-operation has been first rate. We are getting ahead with the work and we hope that it will be to the satisfaction and assistance not only of the workers of this vital industry but of the country as a whole.

Mr. Price: I wish to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman


who has just explained the purposes of this Bill to the Committee and also to say that I am very glad indeed that it is proposed to push on with this work of providing washing facilities, pit-head baths and canteens in the collieries as far as it is possible at the present time. Not so long ago I wrote to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about a canteen in my constituency, advocating the provision of full meals wherever possible and he replied to me rather cautiously. Perhaps he was wise, because I have learned since that the full meal canteens, especially one in my constituency, have not been very well attended. Apparently one has to be careful in this respect and there are many considerations to be borne in mind. From inquiries which I have made, however, it appears that in the particular case to which I refer, no washing facilities were available. That has since been rectified but it would seem that canteens, on the whole, are not so well attended where there are no washing facilities or pit-head baths.
The reason I gather is that the miners do not like to come up from their work dirty, and sit down to a meal without having a wash and that is very understandable. I think if the miner is able to avail himself of washing facilities or, better still, pit-head baths when he comes from his work, he is much more likely to wish to sit down in the canteen to a proper meal. In other cases in my constituency where pit-head baths are provided, full meals are not provided but only light refreshments. I think that in cases where there are pit-head baths, full meals could possibly be provided in the canteens, but that the experiment might not be so successful at those places where there are no washing facilities or no pit-head baths. I believe that the provision of these facilities at collieries would play an important part in connection with our coal output. I know that the real troubles behind this question are different and that we cannot discuss them here to-day. But a measure which would enable the miner who is performing such arduous and dangerous work to get additional food would have an effect ultimately on coal output and anything which can be done with the assistance of this Fund to provide washing facili-

ties and canteens will be most useful. It will be money well invested which will come back to the nation ultimately in increased output, although, of course, that is not to say that there are not other problems which must be tackled because they are really fundamental. I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his statement and I hope that, as far as is possible, in view of present difficulties about priorities in materials, he will push on with the work of providing both pit-head baths and canteens.

Mr. Mander: I think I am the only surviving Member in the House of the Departmental Committee on the Miners' Welfare Fund which was appointed in 1930 by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) then Secretary for Mines. I am very glad that this Measure has been introduced and I am sure that the terms of the Clause which we are discussing are in accordance with the recommendations which we made. We recommended that when the condition of the industry justified it, the levy of one penny should be maintained. It is satisfactory that it has been maintained now for a considerable period and I hope it will be maintained for ever. The work of the Miners' Welfare Fund has been extraordinarily successful. It has produced a spirit of good will and co-operation, which had been sadly lacking in the mining industry, and I hope that the precedent set here may be applied to other industries where there is a similar lack of welfare facilities. I was delighted to hear the report given by my right hon. and gallant Friend on the work which is being done and is in contemplation. My constituents will benefit from that work although only to a small extent, because my constituency is just on the edge of the coal field but the country as a whole and this great national industry will benefit enormously by the admirable work which he and his committee have been doing for so long and which they will continue to do now, I am glad to say with unabated resources.

The Chairman: We are discussing the question whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, and the hon. Member who last spoke was not in Order in discussing the application of a similar principle to other industries. I hope other hon. Members will not follow him.

Mr. Sloan: I should like to add my appreciation of the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes). As representing a mining constituency, I can assure him that the work of the Commission has been appreciated to the full. I am not sure that I could say as much about his statement in regard to the baths position. It is unfortunate that the erection of baths has been slowed down. A serious effort ought to be made to build baths. Their provision was begun before the war, and it is rather pathetic to see baths left in a half-erected condition and no progress whatever being made towards completing them, although miners are in need of bath facilities. One can visit a place month after month and find that no notable measure of progress has been made, and that state of things ought not to be allowed to continue. It is true that there are labour difficulties, but labour is found for a great deal of other work which is not of any more importance than the provision of pithead baths. Labour is being released for other purposes, and why cannot some of it be used for the provision of these baths, which are so desirable and necessary? We were a long time in getting into action in regard to this matter. A certain number of prejudices had to be overcome and then funds were not provided, though when at last we did get into operation we were making rapid progress. In my own county some 60 per cent. of the miners are provided with bath accommodation, and the other 40 per cent. are now awaiting their turn and I would urge the necessity of getting on with things. Priorities should be granted for materials and labour for these baths.

The Chairman: That point really does not arise upon this Clause.

Mr. Sloan: I think it arises out of the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham. He mentioned baths and canteens and the whole purpose of Clause 1 is to secure the finance for these objects. It appears to me there is not much object in our discussing baths if we are not to discuss the purpose to which the levy is to be applied.

The Chairman: I do not want to restrict the hon. Member unduly, but he was making a plea for priority for materials and

labour, and that certainly does not arise under this Clause.

Mr. George Griffiths: Shall we not be able to follow the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes)? He eulogised the work done in the matter of canteens and baths and rehabilitation, and some of us are very keen about all three things, and possibly something else which is in Part I. Almost everything concerned with miners' welfare work is in Part I, because it depends upon the 1d. per ton levy.

The Chairman: That may be the case in regard to the money, but not as to labour and materials. I was not aware that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) was going to take quite the line which he did take, for his remarks might have been more appropriate to the Third Reading, but as he has made them I think I ought, within limits, to allow the Committee to follow suit, but I hope they will not digress from Clause 1 as it stands in the Bill because it is rather limited, merely providing for the continuation of the Section of the original Act extending the operations of the Mining Industry Welfare Fund.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Suppose we pass the Clauses straight away within two minutes and get on to the Third Reading, then we could talk about anything we like.

The Chairman: The hon. Member would be wrong. He would then only be entitled to speak on what is in the Bill.

Sir F. Sykes: I am very sorry if I transgressed, but I said what I did in the hope that it would clear the way for an understanding of the position.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: On a point of Order. Clause 1 does deal with the sum of money which is to be available, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes), when speaking of what had been done, explained the good intentions of the Commission which will receive this money. What I want to ask is whether we are not in a position to express our dissent from the way in which certain things are being done and our disappointment with the inadequacy of the efforts made by the Commission for which the right hon. and gallant Member has been speaking.

The Chairman: The hon. Member would, of course, be in Order as long as he related his remarks to Clause 1.

Mr. Sloan: I have felt in a difficulty and I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. McLean Watson) what I should talk about. He said, "Talk about nothing and you will get on all right." I do not want to prolong my remarks, but I thought we had an opportunity to press upon the right hon. and gallant Member the necessity of getting on with the baths. The question of canteens looms large, and it is necessary to pass this Clause before we can get the funds to provide them. I would say to an hon. Friend who spoke earlier that there are several reasons why canteens are not so extensively used in mining as in other industries. It is not fair to compare miners' canteens with canteens in industries where there is a definite break for meals. That may account for the fact that the canteens have not been so extensively used as they might have been. I want to make the point that there is no break in a miner's working day for a meal. A miner comes up from the pit in a dirty, filthy state. Miners have to choose between running for a bus or train and getting home to a meal that may be prepared for them—in many cases an imaginary meal—or taking a meal at the colliery and losing the bus. It is therefore not fair to say that the miners are not anxious to participate in these canteens. Where the canteens are built near the villages so that the men can take a meal and then go home, they are extensively used, but where there is the possibility of losing their buses or trains, then, naturally, they have to make their choice, and the choice is to get home.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend what degree of permanency we are going to secure with regard to this question of rehabilitation. Is it just a temporary measure, or has there been any definite conclusion arrived at that this scheme of rehabilitation will be in any sense permanent? One Scottish welfare centre has secured very fine premises at the Gleneagles Hotel, where the millionaires used to go to play golf, and part of it is allocated to the miners for rehabilitation purposes, but the possibility is that the millionaires will want to go back to Gleneagles when the war is over and that the miners will be ejected from the place.

Can we have any idea from my hon. Friend or from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Mines as to the degree of permanency that we can expect in regard to this question of rehabilitation, because, if we can have an answer to that question, it will help us very much indeed. I greatly appreciate the work which has been done and the fact that the Bill has again been produced. I am also pleased to hear about the Fund, but I do hope that permanency will exist in this matter.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am very pleased that the Miners' Welfare Fund has extended its benefits until 1951. We were very much alarmed in the mining districts when the statement was circulated in the Press that the penny was going to be reduced to a halfpenny. The outcry was very strong, because if there is any name in the world that the miners, their wives, their children and their children's children reverence, it is the name of Lord Sankey. It was Lord Sankey who presided over the great Commission which included such greatly loved men as Smillie, Herbert Smith and others. That Commission revealed to this country a state of things in the mining villages that a lot of people in the British Isles never thought prevailed. One of the recommendations of the Commission is one which I must not talk about, because it was a recommendation that public ownership should take place. I must not touch on that; the time is not opportune.
I can remember that when I was a lad—it is some years ago now—there were four of us coming home from the pits, and my mother had to heat the water on a fire in a little pitman's cottage for four miners to wash with. It used to take us nearly a couple of hours before we got that out of the way. I am very glad that that sort of thing does not prevail today in the major mining districts of the British Isles. Pit-head baths, as has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), must take precedence over the canteens, because a man wants a wash. After a clean-up he is prepared, generally speaking, to have his meal, and I am quite sure that the chairmen of the Miners' Welfare Committee and the Welfare Commission that sit at the present time will agree with me that the biggest percentage


of cooked meals in the canteens is taken where there are pit-head baths. I cited a case when I was on the other side of this House ten days ago of a man who worked a large number of shifts and who had to travel five miles each way in a bus in his black face because there was no pit-head bath. The foundations for pit-head baths at his pit had been prepared, but the baths have not been built on account of the war. That man travelled ten miles, and then, on top of that, he travelled another two and a half miles down the pit, walking in and walking out, and then had to go home in a filthy condition. I am hoping that we shall get the money and be able to start pit-head baths. I feel that baths should be given priority over canteens in the future.
One word, if I may, on this rehabilitation scheme. I went along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions to Mansfield, and I was delighted with the day I spent there. I saw men who had been crocked up, some with broken legs, others with broken spines or other very serious injuries, but these men had the joy of life in them, because, although they were not permanently cured of their injuries, they had great hopes that they would be able to get back to their work. That is a great thing with the miner. He does not want to do dataling if he is a coal-face worker. One of the reasons why he does not want that is because a man who is at the coal face gets little more money than if he is dataling. If he is dataling, he thinks he is a drag on the concern. These men at Mansfield felt that they were going to get back to their work. I am pleased that the chairman has stated that we are going to extend these rehabilitation centres. I can speak about these things because I was a member of a miners' welfare committee in South Yorkshire for 15 years, and I know the benefits that accrue. I had the wife of a miner at my house the other day, and she said, "Our Sam has come back from the miners' convalescent home, and he has put on ten pounds in weight in a fortnight and is now ready for work." So all the pit-head baths, canteens and other social amenities are without doubt very acceptable. I am delighted that the Miners' Welfare Fund is going on until 1951, and after that I hope it is going on for eternity.

Mr. Maclean Watson: I welcome the statement that has been made by the chairman of the Welfare Commission. Before the war we used to discuss the Welfare Fund, and there were then two objects in view, baths and miners' institutes. No miners' institutes have been erected during the war, although they were very warmly welcomed, especially by miners in outlying villages. I dare say that if the money were available now, miners' institutes would again figure in the programme of the Welfare Commission. I welcome also the maintenance of the penny per ton. If there had been a reduction in the amount of money coming into the Fund we should have found ourselves in difficulties, not only during the war but afterwards. The baths programme is not nearly completed. We want more bathing facilities at a number of collieries that will still continue to operate for some years.
Since the war began there have been new developments in amenities and in the facilities for rehabilitation. When a miner met with an accident before the war, he got his compensation if the accident was received in the course of his employment, and he was usually treated in a hospital if it was serious, and then he went home until he was able to return to his work. Now we have had a beginning made with rehabilitation. I was pleased to hear the chairman speak with such enthusiasm of the progress that has been made in that direction. I hope we shall have more rehabilitation in the future than in the past. I hope also that the Welfare Commission will not surrender Gleneagles Hotel after the war is over. I hope that the hotel business will be dropped and that the place will be called "The Gleneagles Convalescent Home" or "Rehabilitation Centre" and that it will not be a place where millionaires can go to enjoy themselves. We have had enough of that in the past. The hotel is serving a much more useful purpose at the moment than it was before the war, and I hope that miners in Scotland who are injured and require treatment will be looked after in a place like Gleneagles Hotel. It is none too good for the men who are producing coal in Scotland.
I welcome the maintenance of the penny per ton. Miners are raising no objection to it, and anyone who begins to talk about miners being hard and stingy is


saying something which is simply not true. The miners welcome the welfare machinery in the industry, as well as the baths and the institutes, and no objection has been taken to the programme that is now being carried out by the Welfare Commission in regard to amenities and rehabilitation with the changes that are being made above ground and the changes being made below ground, I cannot understand the opposition that comes from certain quarters in this House to young men being directed to the mines.

The Chairman: That subject does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Watson: Perhaps not, Major Milner, but I have to confess that I have been surprised at the outcry that has been raised. There is no comparison, either above or below ground, between the conditions at present and even those which I knew when I left the mines, and there should not be so much objection to people being induced to go into the mines. Miners are supposed to have made good wages, which induced them to stay there, but now there are other inducements. The miners hope that all the money possible will be kept in the Miners' Welfare Fund for the purpose of making conditions in the mines better and more attractive. I welcome the Clause.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I do not wish to follow the line taken by the hon. Member who has just sat down, because whatever changes may have taken place in the mining industry it is still the dirtiest and filthiest job known to mankind.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: It is not. It may be dirty, but it is not filthy.

Mr. Walkden: I am maintaining that it is the most distasteful job that I know. I have known many jobs, but nothing quite like it. I support Clause 1. Changes have been effected. I should have liked to have put many questions to the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) in regard to the Clause, but I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the way in which the money is spent, so I can only suggest that we have not had the right kind of explanation up to now why certain things that ought to have been

done have not been done with the money previously voted.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Specify them.

Mr. Walkden: I will specify them. I am unhappy about the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) about the shortage or the absence of baths. I cannot understand why the Minister of Fuel and Power has not gone to the Supply Committee or to some other Department and asked for equal treatment with the Service Departments in the matter of supplying mobile or emergency baths. During the next 12 months the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister can do a considerable amount of work with the money to which we are now being asked to agree. I believe we could find typical samples of baths that could be constructed or erected close to pit-heads, not of a permanent character but sufficiently so to meet emergencies, where-ever canteens are opened. It is no use saying that we are not able to adapt ourselves to new circumstances. We can do it. The truth is, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth said, that wherever there are pit-head baths side by side with canteens, the hot meal canteens get more customers. Why? Because people do not feel comfortable with merely washing their hands or faces. They want a real good bath.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary endeavour during the next few months to persuade some of the Supply Departments to erect baths, perhaps somewhat similar to what we have seen in the American camps or in our own military camps in this country? They should be erected where canteens are open. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an undertaking that no more canteens will be opened until there are emergency bathing facilities to go with them? I believe that the hon. Member is as worried as we are why so few people are using the canteens in some areas. I would like to take housewives to the canteens and show them what good value their husbands are getting, and urge them to browbeat their husbands to go to the canteens, where they could get good value for their money.

Mr. Tom Smith: As it is essential that we should get the Bill before a certain


time, perhaps it will be as well if I say now what I have to say. I suppose that this is one of the few Bills dealing with mining that can pass through the House without raising very violent controversy. That is because since 1930 we have seen in mining districts the value of the penny per ton levy. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) said that miners would always revere the name of Sankey. It is true that when, in 1920, the Mining Industry Act created the Miners' Welfare Fund, Parliament did the mining industry a good turn. Out of the money there have been developed many social amenities, such as hospitals and convalescent homes and things too numerous to mention. Not the least of these developments was when the Miners' Welfare Commission started to pay attention to washing facilities at the pit. It is also true to say that we have been very backward as a country, compared with some others, with regard to the provision of washing facilities at collieries. In 1911, when Parliament made provision for it, it was so surrounded with limitations that it proved to be impracticable. Until after the last war no progress was made, but then an effort was made to establish washing facilities. There was a change in the attitude of the men.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: And a change in the owners too.

Mr. Smith: Yes, certainly. We have seen a good deal of change with regard to the need of baths on both sides of the industry. At my own pit the proposal was turned down many years ago, but in 1925 I had the privilege of being present at the opening of baths at that pit-head. To-day, 60 per cent. of the men in the industry are employed at collieries where baths are provided. It is a definite object of this Bill to provide money up to 1951, when the whole question of miners' welfare comes up for reconsideration, in order to provide and hasten washing facilities at every colliery in the country. The Miners' Welfare Commission, in conjunction with the Minister of Fuel and Power, are in consultation with the Minister of Works to get a relative priority. I think I can assure the Committee—I have sufficient evidence here—that the Minister of Fuel and Power has the keenest determination to get this baths programme going as quickly as possible.

Mr. E. Walkden: Temporary structures?

Mr. Smith: I am coming to the points in proper sequence. The hon. Member asked whether we had been to certain of the Ministries to stake out our claim for certain things; undoubtedly we have. We have had some terrific arguments. It was only when we were faced with certain objections that there had to be somewhat of a slowing down. It might be useful to point out that when the Government decided in 1940 to stop the erection of pit-head baths owing to labour and other difficulties, there were 38 baths under construction. Twenty-four of them were completed, and 14 had to be stopped at various stages short of completion because the delivery of all materials and equipment could not be guaranteed. Since then six of them have been proceeded with, and we are constantly considering how best we can meet immediate needs, particularly when we are asking certain men to go into certain pits. I think I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) that we will lose no opportunity of providing what facilities we can.
With regard to canteens, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are more people using full meal canteens where there are baths than at collieries where there are not baths. I know that some collieries that have not pit-head baths have provided washing facilities for hands. My hon. Friend may take it that we shall not delay in taking any opportunity of improving that side. It is perfectly true that the spending of this welfare money does bring in the question of canteen facilities generally, and the question of rehabilitation. With regard to the progress that has been made in canteens, that has been dealt with in Parliamentary question and answer, and therefore I do not need to weary the Committee now.
Regarding rehabilitation, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) asked a perfectly fair question as to what guarantee could be given that this rehabilitation will be continued after the war. I think he and I were at Gleneagles at the opening of that very fine hotel as a rehabilitation centre. He will be interested to know that a certain gentleman up there said to me at the opening, "How long do you think you will want this hotel?" I said, "As long as it is doing


useful work." With regard to the future, I think I can say this, having had the privilege of presenting to the Government the Report of the Committee that sat on medical services for miners, you can take it for granted that this rehabilitation has come to stay in the mining industry. If, after the war, we get a general scheme of rehabilitation, it may be possible to dovetail the miners' scheme in. That will be a matter for discussion later, but I think none can deny that there would be such a row in the mining industry if anybody attempted to limit that rehabilitation. And always remember that we rehabilitate not merely to get a man fit to get back to the pit and win coal for the war effort, but because it is the humane thing to do to get an injured man fit as quickly as possible. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that he may take it for granted that this rehabilitation has come to stay.

Mr. Gallacher: Have the rehabilitation centres we now have come to stay?

Mr. Smith: In reply to that, I would say that I cannot, and nobody else can, say that particular buildings now in existence will stay after the war. I have no authority for saying that. We were very much indebted to the Scottish Board of Health for the facilities they have provided for Scotland. While we cannot say that a particular building will remain for all time after the war, one can say this, that the facilities for rehabilitation will continue as long as there is a need for them in the mining industry.
The only other thing I have to say is that this extension of the welfare penny levy from the end of 1943 to the end of 1951 is a very welcome thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth talked about the alarm. He need not be alarmed. There was no intention on the part of my right hon. Friend of limiting in any shape or form the provision of pit-head baths. The only discussion was whether it was wiser to get the money now or leave it until after the war. Finally it was decided to get the money now, and that is the purpose of this Bill. I predict it will have a very smooth passage and that we shall ultimately see the benefit.
One final point. Some time, possibly on the Estimates, would it not be a good

thing to have a fairly general discussion on the progress that has been made in miners' welfare? If we do that, we may dispel a good deal of ignorance about the British mining industry, and we may be able to show that some real progress has been made. I do not hesitate to say—I have the statement I used a few weeks ago in one colliery district showing the progress that has been made since the Welfare Fund was established in 1920—that it is really remarkable progress, although, as the Chairman of the Welfare Commission has said, you do get differences in administration; but on the whole there has been a remarkable development. I have heard it described from platforms many times as the magic penny. It certainly has done a great amount of good. I hope that when the appropriate time comes Members in all parts of the House will be prepared to discuss, and discuss thoroughly, the progress that has been made since 1920 through the Miners' Welfare Commission and the Miners' Welfare Fund. At the moment we have to limit ourselves to discussion pertaining to the Bill.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: As it is desired to have this Bill through very soon, I want to say that we welcome this, as miners, very sincerely indeed. Regarding what the Parliamentary Secretary has said on the question of the levy and pit-head baths, as to whether we should have the money now or defer it till the war is over, I will say that when the President of the Mineworkers' Federation, in a speech, seemed to imply that there was a danger regarding the levy nothing less than consternation went through the mining area. Some of my hon. Friends, Members from purely mining constituencies, would have liked to have had a word or two on this. There are a number of things we would have liked to have said. For instance, it appears to me that if we had been as interested in the miners as we ought to have been and we had taken the same steps even during the depression in regard to pit-head baths as with regard to mechanisation, we could have had every colliery in the coalfield to-day with a pit-head bath. We are also complaining about the lack of technicians. I would commend this, that in regard to the miners' scholarship scheme everything might be done to make the scheme as applicable as possible to as wide a number as we can so that we can


solve the question of technicians in the mining industry. I hope that when this comes up again my hon. Friend will be able to report some progress in some of the matters that have been mentioned with regard to labour and materials, so that the baths which have not been completed should be and those which have not been commenced may have been started and be in course of completion. We sincerely welcome this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to make a suggestion, but before making it I would like to express my agreement with the references that have been made to the changes and developments in miners' welfare. Anyone who cares to go back and read some of the reports of, say, 100 years back on the conditions in the mining industry, and then consider the situation in the mining industry to-day, could scarcely believe it to be the same industry which is being considered. At the same time it should be remembered that this progress up to where we are just now with the pit-head baths, rehabilitation, and the rest of it, has been one long struggle on the part of the miners and the miners' organisation. If ever there was an organisation of the working class or of any kind which has justified itself by the service it has given to those within its folds, it is surely the organisation of the miners which is now the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, which at all the different stages of organisation has played its part in building up a better conception of conditions for miners and in building up at the same time the strength of the union.
I would say that now, more than ever, when young men are being directed into the mines, is welfare necessary, particularly in connection with the provision of washing facilities at the pit-head baths. We have now got away from the old days, when in the evening if you went into a miner's house you would see the big kitchen with a stone floor and everywhere around heavy, dirty, wet clothes hanging, making home life almost impossible. We have got away from that, and as a result of the council houses and pit-head baths we have produced a better situation. I would say that with the coming of the lads into the pits as a result of the ballot we should do everything possible to get washing facilities. I suggest to the Minister that his Department should lay it down and demand the Government's

support for it when they lay it down that they will not be forced out of Gleneagles unless, and until, they get alternative accommodation of the same high standard. It would be a shame and a disgrace if the Ministry allowed golfers when the war is over to come back and turn the rehabilitation work out of Gleneagles.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move,
That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1943, dated 8th December, 1943, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1943, a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th December, be approved.
The Regulations which are now submitted for the approval of the House are in accordance with Section 20 of the Parliamentary Electors (War-time Registration) Act, 1943. These Regulations have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House. The Regulations mainly, shall I say wholly, speak for themselves, and I shall not take up much time in explaining them unless someone is expecting to get further explanation. One point I want to emphasise is that so far as the instructions are concerned we intend to send out very simple instructions which will be easily understood by those who have to supervise the filling-in of forms, examples of which are contained in the Schedule to the Regulations. I trust that the Regulations will now go through without any opposition.

Mr. Gallacher: With regard to Scotland, would the Minister advise us as to the population that is going to participate in the elections? It is quite clear that, unless we get some more industries into Scotland—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): That is outside the scope of the Regulations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1943, dated 8th December, 1943, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1943, a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th December, be approved.

NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the statement made on behalf, of His Majesty's Government of the acceptance in principle of the right of Newfoundland to self-government; and urges His Majesty's Government to give effect to such approval by taking the necessary preliminary action as soon as practicable.
I regret that I have to start with a bit of a grumble. The statement made by the Under-Secretary the last time we discussed Colonial matters was so mixed up with the general Debate as to lose its effectiveness. I have had cuttings from newspapers in Newfoundland which show that they are puzzled as to what happened, and that they have missed altogether the force and significance of that statement. I have called attention on other questions to the way this Government do the right thing in the wrong way, and thereby lose what credit it should have had and spoil the whole picture. This Debate may serve to put matters right on the other side. They commented over there on the fact that the three Members of the Mission appeared to be absent, and that other people who have shown an interest in Newfoundland affairs also appeared to be absent. They did not know that that discussion was spatchcocked into a Debate of an entirely different nature.
My colleagues and I have decided, particularly in view of the fact that we have less time than we expected, to divide between us the statement about our Mission which is, in fact, our report to the House. I am especially charged with what I will call the constitutional aspect. There are one or two preliminary statements which I want to make, which at first may appear irrelevant to the report of the Mission and to the Motion now before us, but as the Debate proceeds I think Members will see that the past history of Newfoundland accounts very much for the position existing there at present. Until we apprehend

that, we are likely to take a mere superficial view, exactly as one would in the case of any other State. The island was discovered in 1497. It was not until 1583 that it was formally taken possession of by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, in the name of this country. That meant that England had adopted her first child and the British Empire had begun. Then followed a long period of neglect—one might call it child neglect, or parental forgetfulness—which accounts very largely for the disposition of the population of the island. For more than a century and a half the original fisherfolk and settlers were not allowed to settle in the country, and, with a stubbornness born of their English blood, they maintained their position in little groups all around the island. That accounts to-day for the economic and constitutional situation. It would be well for hon. Members to keep those facts in mind, because they have a bearing on the situation that we discovered. In reporting on our work, at first I felt a little dubiety over the fact that three separate reports had been drawn up by us, and, may I say, without consultation with each other and without discussion, except in the sense that we discussed these matters with the same people. That adds more to the value of the fact that on the broad basis of the reports we have submitted there is very little disagreement: there is slight disagreement on matters of detail, but on fundamental matters we are in accord.
The Mission set about its work in unconventional and unorthodox manner. We did not sit in any central building in the capital, nor did we, wherever we went, sit in state and ask the people who ordinarily do such things to come and give evidence. We went to the people themselves, after having got our bearings and found out the distribution of people and interests. So we had a somewhat unique experience, I imagine, for a Mission representing Parliament. The very fact that travelling facilities in the country are so poor made our work very much more difficult than it otherwise would have been. While we travelled just over 3,000 miles, I hope I shall be understood when I say that that represents three or four times that amount of travel in any other country with ordinary facilities. Outside the Avalon Peninsula, there is hardly any train service, and what there is is not taken too seriously: it is no good making appointments, or hoping to be anywhere


by a certain date or a certain time. Also, the great shortage of roads makes travelling very difficult and very slow. So for a large part of the year, in the worst season of the year, people in different parts of the island are cut off from each other. There is little or no means of communication such as we are used to. If we do not get these facts into our minds, we lose sight of the difficulties which confronted the Mission and which now confront the Government.
We took our evidence and interviewed people on wharfsides, in sheds, on one occasion in a churchyard, in school halls, and more particularly in stores, because we found that the thing to do—there are no shops outside St. John's, in the way we understand them—was to go into a store and talk to the first person we met. Thus the grape vine telephone worked: things began to sink in. So we managed to get evidence, apart from anything we did of a formal character. My hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer A. Herbert) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) came into contact especially with those who had served in the Forces in the last war and people of that sort, while I addressed a conference of the Labour people. Also, we were guests at a dinner at which every Labour representative on the island was invited and was present. They were the only gatherings of what I would call a formal kind, but they were important and helped us to make the necessary contacts. That, briefly, is the method on which we conducted our inquiries.
I propose to deal especially with the constitutional position. The difficulty we were up against was that nobody seemed to know quite what he wanted. Everybody had a vague idea—which was a good one—that he wanted to return to some form of self-government, but exactly what it was he did not know, except that he did not want to return to the position which existed just before the Commissioners were appointed.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does my hon. Friend mean that with reference to the Squires Government, or with reference to the form of government?

Mr. Ammon: Of course, it had reference to the Government, but they also said, "We do not want him, and we do not

want him," indicating that all the remnants of that Government had not disappeared, and that they did not want to be burdened with them again. That they expressed in no uncertain language. There were three or four alternatives which cropped up in discussion. There can be no question of any challenge whatever to the claim for responsible and representative government. The only dispute which might arise is as to how it should be given, and the appropriate time. If I may quote the Apostle Paul:
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient.
There was the question of the return to what they call responsible government, and there was the question of the continuance of the Commission Government. Some people had ideas of linking up with Canada, and some of linking up with the United States; that last suggestion found very few supporters, but it had its genesis in the fact that for the time the island is enjoying unexampled prosperity. That is largely brought about by the United States naval bases and military camps, and other places which they have built. These have brought much money to the Newfoundlanders and plentiful employment: no fewer than 20,000 persons have been engaged therein. These people, forgetting their past history, are beginning to think that if they link up with the United States that sort of thing was going to continue. The Mission were quite clear that they could dismiss that anyway as a serious proposition. Then there is the question of linking up with Canada. There is a large number of people who want that, but an overwhelming number who are against it. I think that the Mission are right—although I may speak with prejudice in saying that—in thinking that that is a matter which can be decided only by Newfoundland, not a matter which can be imposed upon Newfoundland from here in any way. That brings me to the question started by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) of a system similar to that of Northern Ireland. It was felt that the long distances separating us and a variety of other considerations put that out of the question altogether.
We are left with two issues, either to restore responsible Government or to try to find a middle course and to approach it in steps. You cannot isolate the constitutional position from the economic posi-


tion, and that is something which I hope the House will keep clearly in mind all through these discussions. Just now Newfoundland is enjoying a period of prosperity such as it has not known since the last war, but the fact that it also enjoyed prosperity during the last war and was afterwards plunged into the depths of misery and poverty should make us very careful how we view the position in this connection. There is more than one factor which has led to that prosperity, but the dominating one consists of the United States air bases and the military encampments that have been built there and also of Canada with its air bases. We cannot ignore the fact that both Iceland and Norway have been out of business as far as fishing is concerned, and that also is bound to have its effect. We find there reasons for Newfoundland's prosperity, but as the possibility of war begins to recede from the far West, so we can see that prosperity will recede, and already the peak of the prosperity period has passed.
Now will begin the period of declension. It is essential that steps be taken as soon as possible to prevent Newfoundland entering the terrible depths of depression at the time when the people had only an allowance of 3d. a day, or not more than 2s. a week at the outside, to assist them over that period. A few of the clergy and priests we met out there told us how acute was the hunger. That factor has to be taken into consideration when we consider the problems concerned with regard to the Constitution. Differing only a trifle as to the period of time for development, the Mission have arrived at the idea that there must be a compromise position for a time between commission government and that of responsible government. They have suggested to the Department that Commissioners should be nominated from this side and that those from the other side should be elected by a general franchise of the country, so by that means we could begin to bring them into some knowledge and use of the franchise to which they have been unused for some time.
There is strong criticism of the Commission of Government; nobody can deny that. At the same time a good deal of it arises because of the manner in which they were first appointed and the difficulties

under which they have laboured since, some of their own making. The Commission of Government was appointed at the request of the Parliamentary Government of Newfoundland itself.

Mr. Maxton: That was not the whole of the story.

Mr. Ammon: That is how they came to be appointed. Following on from that, there was also the period when the world was in a bad state economically, about the period of the May Report. That also made it difficult and probably accounted for the way in which the Commission was appointed. I believe that in better times that Government would have been differently constituted. We sent out three civil servants from this country with all the qualities and all the weaknesses of the Civil Service. They were honest, hardworking and took great care in discharging their duties faithfully and well, but with not much understanding of getting into contact with the public or public opinion. They made two very bad mistakes at the kick-off. Important as some economic things are, if you injure national sentiment you cut very much more deeply than anything else. Almost the first thing that was done was to close the Colonial building, which had been the Parliament House since 1855, and to abolish its insignia and the symbols of Parliament, at once creating the impression that it was the intention of the Government on this side to wipe out every possibility of a return to responsible government. One cannot characterise that as other than rather a stupid thing to do. In addition, on the grounds of economy they swept away their national museum and nobody knows where the contents are distributed—little things, the House may say, but they are rather important in the life of a nation. But they did other things for which they have received no credit. They lacked what the hon. and gallant Member who seconds the Amendment does not lack—a sense of publicity and a way of "getting across" to the country what they were doing and what they intended. One did not know what they had actually done by way, of improvement, but as a matter of fact they had introduced hospitals which were not there before. They had started a welfare service and a few other things which were not very spectacular but were of wide importance to the nation itself. I have by a happy coincidence a cutting, received as


late as last night, sent to me from St. John's—it is from one of the principal newspapers, "The Evening Telegram,' of 6th December—and I will read the following extract:
While without doubt more could have been expected of Commission of Government in bringing about a better balanced economy, it cannot be claimed that when affairs were in our own control much attention was given to such matters. Administration after administration chose to tolerate in the salt cod industry the pernicious system of tal qual which encouraged shiftlessness in the curing of the country's main product. Such was the lack of insistence upon the quality of the exports that the markets for Newfoundland salt fish, Newfoundland lobsters and Newfoundland herring dwindled. Such was the indifference to the need for protection of the game life that such animals as the caribou were all but exterminated. So little regard was paid to the value of the timber and water power resources that they were disposed of to speculators for next to nothing. Although there was crying need for improved medical facilities, outside St. John's there was not a single hospital, with the exception of those provided by the Grenfell Institute and the Twillingate Memorial largely maintained by the people of the North-East coast. Even when conditions were at their worst, evidence of venality in public life was, not lacking.
That was before Commission of Government went in and referred not only to the last Government but an over a number of Governments elected by its own people. This, mark you, is in a paper which has been strongly insistent that they must have their own right of self-government and which shares its views with the "Daily News," the leading paper in Newfoundland. We saw the articles of the hon. Member opposite which are syndicated on that Continent in this paper from time to time.

Mr. Baxter: It does keep them in touch.

Mr. Ammon: That was the position we were up against. In addition to what we propose with regard to the Commission themselves we also suggest that it is not quite in keeping with his position, nor is it fair, that the Governor should continue to be Chairman of the Commission. It places him in an invidious position in that he might seem to take sides, but, after all, he is the King's representative. Although fully qualified as this gentleman undoubtedly is, and against whom there is not a word of criticism, either from us or from Newfoundland, from the very nature of things he has not the training neither the experience to appreciate a position like that. Therefore we have sug-

gested that there should be a chairman appointed by the Governor after his choice had been agreed to by the members of the new Commission and this we suggest as a half-way house. In addition we suggest that a Treasury official should go out there to advise and that he should, have power, up to whatever might be the agreed amount, to consent to expenditure on the spot rather than that every trumpery bit of expenditure should have to be referred back to London in order to obtain assent to it. We also suggest that two or three highly placed civil servants should go out from this country to advise in Newfoundland and that similar civil servants should come over here from Newfoundland in order to obtain a training in this country and so by that means gradually to build up a Civil Service. Those, in broad outline, are the main proposals we suggest with regard to the Commission government themselves.

Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him a question really to bring out a point? Are he and the hon. Friends who accompanied the deputation aware that several Members of this House, including myself, who have paid private visits to Newfoundland in recent years, have approached the appropriate authorities—the Dominions Office—with very much the same sort of proposals that he has made and that to date not the slightest notice has been taken of any of the suggestions that have been made?

Mr. Ammon: I am not aware of it.

Mr. Maxton: It makes no difference to the Dominions Office.

Mr. Ammon: I hope they are going to realise it to-day, though I do not know. We cannot expect that Newfoundland can stand on her feet alone economically, so we have ventured to put proposals to the Dominions Office whereby they must be helped. If we want a British Empire, we must be expected to shoulder the responsibilities as well as the glory.

Mr. Baxter: Would the hon. Member clarify the point? Is it his opinion that Newfoundland will never in normal times be able to stand on its feet economically?

Mr. Ammon: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will develop that point in


my own way. There should be laid down a ten years' scale of economic development, and for that purpose there should be a loan, in agriculture, education, health, roads, transport and other services. That must be backed by a development loan from this side, in order that Newfoundland may be put on her feet. That brings me to the point asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). My colleagues and I do not accept the view for one moment that Newfoundland cannot give a decent standard of life to an even larger population than she has now if she is given the proper opportunity to develop. If this scheme of development were accepted, she could administer it on her own. That is the idea we have put before the Dominions Office. I do not accept the view that Newfoundland cannot feed herself. Moreover, the main part of her revenue is raised by taxes on imported goods. That in itself means, of necessity, an increased cost of living and bears most heavily on the poorest people in the community. When we were asked, "Cannot you do something to reduce the cost of living?" we replied, "It is impossible while you maintain that system of raising your revenue."
Denominationalism and sectarianism also have to be taken into consideration. We have put forward proposals for starting and developing a Civil Service Commission, somewhat on the lines of our own, which would be more effective than anything else in sweeping away this denominationalism and sectarianism. Each of us has written a report of over 30,000 words, apart from appendices, so the House can imagine how difficult it is to say all one wants to say in the available time.
With regard to the Motion on the Order Paper, by good luck there came to me in the post last night cuttings from recent issues of "The Evening Telegram" and "The Daily News," which are the newspapers in that island. Both bear out the testimony that they do not feel that they can yet be given the full state of responsible government. Let me give the House the benefit of their opinion. "The Evening Telegram" for 30th November states:
In view of the absence of anything which could be described as an insistent demand by

the general public for the immediate restoration of Newfoundland's former status it is not an unreasonable inference that they were not particularly impressed with any desire for an immediate change.…
"The Daily News" for 3rd December states:
As this newspaper has observed time and again we have failed as a people to exhibit active interest in our own political and economic destiny.… Even now, when a debate on our political status is about to take place in Parliament, the public is satisfied to leave all public comment to the Press.… It is at the door of the Commission of Government that failure to enlarge local government must be laid since the political education of the people of Newfoundland was a direct charge upon it. Local government will not develop far or fast if left to the voluntary decision of the people as the difficulties encountered in some communities amply demonstrate.…
Again, "The Evening Telegram" of 4th December states:
It can scarcely be shown that up to the present the population has displayed the strong insistence which might reasonably have been expected to be restored the rights of the franchise … neither the daily nor the weekly newspapers are deluged with letters demanding a return to responsible government.
That is the view of Newfoundland.

Mr. Maxton: No, only newspaper editors.

Mr. Ammon: The hon. Gentleman knows that these people represent more than anything those most clamorous for a return to the old affairs. They have changed their views considerably in the light of more recent events. That is the case I put forward. It would be ten times worse than last time if we gave responsible self-government to Newfoundland and she fell into the same trouble again. This House, the Government and the country will fail in their duty to Newfoundland if, while admitting and recognising the right to restore full self-government as soon as possible, they did not take steps to see that when they do so Newfoundland would be in a position to develop and maintain her country economically to the fullest possible extent. It is along those lines that we make our recommendations. We must use our thought, discrimination and sympathy in determining the right moment and the best possible circumstances to give Newfoundland full self-government. The proposals we have put forward will help to give them the guidance for which they have asked in these newspaper articles. We have to remember


the strategic importance of Newfoundland in the days to come. It is doubly essential that we should not run a risk by placing in her hands power which she will not be able to utilise properly. We should make sure that what we do for Newfoundland is well founded, so that she can not only stand on her own feet but will be able to walk.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I had hoped to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the Debate, but as the Debate itself started rather later than expected it might perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I followed the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). As he said, I will deal rather more with Newfoundland's economic problems and prospects, which will perhaps be of some assistance to the House in deciding whether or not to approve of the Motion. I would like to say how much I agree with everything my hon. Friend said and to associate myself with his remarks about the kindness we received in Newfoundland from the Governor, Lady Walwyn, the Commission and every section of the community. It is difficult, of course, to get public opinion where you have not much local government and where there is not even a village moot, such as our English "pub." But we went out into the highways and byways, and we met clergymen of every denomination. I should say that there must be more clergymen per man-power in Newfoundland than in any other country in the-world? We met merchants and fishermen of all classes. They are a delightful people, and, like all who wrestle daily with the forces of nature, they are very religious. We must remember that because, owing to religious training in Newfoundland there is less crime there than in any other country. They are very loyal and their outlook is very much the same as ours.
The people there are marvellously hospitable and have wonderful manners. Perhaps I might illustrate those manners by quoting the last signal which my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) and I received as we were leaving St. John's in a destroyer. The signal sent by some of our Newfoundland friends was:
There are more tears than water in our whisky to-night.

That signal gave us courage to feel that our journey was not in vain and that somehow we had got across. I would like to congratulate the Government on the boldness and rapidity of their announcement. I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Deputy-Prime Minister, who was Secretary of State and who has been to Newfoundland and has taken a great interest in that country. I would like to thank him for the opportunity he gave me, and the privilege, of allowing me to go on the Mission. It has now been announced that Newfoundlanders themselves shall decide what form of Constitution they want. That, again, shows that our journey has not been in vain.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell said about the Commission of Government. They have done a fine job. They have increased health services, brought in compulsory education, though not quite so compulsory as we would like—but it is on the right lines—and they have instituted a permanent Civil Service. Before that there was the spoils system in which whole offices changed when the Government went out. Complicated by the fact that even down to crossing-sweepers people had to be given offices according to the proportion of their religious denomination. That has been swept away. The Commission of Government has also done great work in establishing co-operative societies. I admit, of course, that it is not a popular Government. No Government that has been in office for 10 years is very popular. But nearly every critic of the Commission of Government ended by saying, "Mind you, the Commission has done a great job." I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has ever given that much praise to this democratically elected Government of all parties and talents that graces the Front Bench.
I did find a great difference of opinion. Nobody wants responsible government now, and if such a proposal were put on the Order Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and were put to the vote, I do not think it would get any vote except his own. But I found that there was great doubt about after the war, and the curious thing is that trade unions and co-operative societies are more apprehensive about


return to responsible government than the merchants of St. John's. Many said they wanted responsible government x years after the war, but the further we journeyed from St. John's the greater the size of x grew. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Petty Officer Herbert) will enlarge on the feeling in Newfoundland about St. Johns and its lack of popularity among the rest of the population.
I should like to turn to the really important question which is fundamental to our discussion, whether Newfoundland can stand alone. It has a population of 300,000, scattered over 6,000 miles of coastline, in a country not very much smaller than England. Some people have suggested that she might go in with the United States or amalgamate or confederate with Canada. I quite agree that that is a question that can only finally be decided by Newfoundlanders and Newfoundlanders alone, but I am sure if it was put to the vote it would be overwhelmingly defeated. But why should we be defeatist? This is a country which has more experience of Empire problems than any nation and are more likely to solve this difficult Imperial puzzle than any other. I believe this country alone can assist Newfoundland to become self-supporting. It may be asked what guarantee we have that the position will not lapse into what it was after the last war. Remember that Newfoundland imports nearly all her necessities of life and has to pay for them by exports. Her chief export is, of course, cod. It has been the custom of the Newfoundland fisheries in the past to catch the cod, split it and salt it and sell it to the Mediterranean, Spanish and South American countries, countries with the lowest standard of living. I think after the war there will be a demand for all kinds of food, because Europe will be more or less starving and there will be a demand for salt cod. But the great hope of the Newfoundland fisheries is the reorganisation of the fisheries which is now taking place. A new process has been established, and it is successful. It consists in buying the cod as it is caught from the fishermen, and filleting it, sharp freezing it, wrapping it in attractive celophane wrappers and sending it over to the British and United States markets. I do not know whether Great Britain will be able to take

this product after the war, but an enormous amount depends on whether the United States will import this attractive article of food. Contrary to what many people believe, the United States as a whole are not a great fish-eating nation, but they are now buying this new product, and it is getting to the American market. The Government after the war will, no doubt, by Trade Treaties endeavour to see that it enters the American market on favourable terms. If it can get into the American market—I think it will—the whole situation will be altered. Instead of selling the cod to countries with a low standard of living, they will be selling to the United States with a higher standard.
But that is not the end of the story, because at the moment in regard to the salt cod industry, the fisherman has to catch his cod and split it and salt it. He has to do that as well as fish. That means that he has not sufficient time to fish. Now he can sell direct to the factories and go back and catch more fish. In addition to that, the factories are employing girls, many of them of the fishermen's families, so that more money comes into the homes. Further, while in the salt cod industry only about 40 per cent. is used in the factories, the whole of the fish is processed and made into fillets, cod liver oil and the offal into fish meal and fertilisers. The new factories will attract in that way ancillary industries. The whole question depends on this new development, and many enterprising Newfoundland firms are erecting these factories. We saw any amount of them. But more money will be required, and the Government must help in the long-term development plan. I understand that the whole plan is in the Dominions Office. I hope it will not lie in the overburdened, weighed down and groaning pigeon holes of the Dominion Office, but will be put into practice.
The other prospect that I see for helping the country is agriculture and timber. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will tell the House something about timber and the paper companies. I want to come to agriculture. No country can have a proper economic balance if it does not possess an agriculture. It is very difficult to farm in Newfoundland. You cannot just go out and dig or plough. You have to drain the bog, an expensive process, and clear the forest—but I think it can be done. There have been various settlements established which are working well,


but it is a very heartbreaking job for a man to clear the timber before he begins to cultivate the land. I believe it ought to be done by the Government using skilled men to clear large tracts of land so that it will be possible to establish mixed farms. Newfoundland suffers from malnutrition and has the lowest consumption of fresh milk in the world. I am convinced that with a proper system of agriculture it will be possible to produce enough protective food, such as fresh meat, milk and vegetables and so on, to feed the people. Coupled with agriculture is the tourist industry. If properly developed, it can do an enormous amount and give employment. Newfoundland possesses wonderful sporting possibilities. It has the finest salmon rivers in the world. None of them have been sold or let. I hope that policy will be continued. Anyone who goes to Newfoundland can fish in the finest rivers in the world on payment of a small licence fee, but it is no good them going if they cannot go to the rivers and have nowhere to stay. The Tourist Association, a voluntary body, is doing very fine work and has put up some log cabins, but much more is required. It must be undertaken by the Government. They must build holiday camps and a certain amount of roads. I do not suggest a great road building programme which might not be economical.
Curiously enough, the future of the tourist traffic and the future of farming go very much together. The best salmon rivers and the best agricultural land are on the West coast running up to the Codonoy Valley to the Upper Humber. It will be quite easy, by connecting up some roads, to drive a road from Pont au Basque where the American tourists would land to the upper Humber and so develop the tourist traffic and agriculture. You would kill two birds with one stone, or shall I say develop two industries by one road by that means. This will require money, but I believe it can be done fairly cheaply by building roads and settlements, rest houses and hotels, by the use of skilled labour. By an extraordinarily fortunate coincidence we have in this country at this moment the Newfoundland lumber unit. I have just spent five days with them. The Newfoundland Forestry and Lumber Unit is doing a great work in Scotland. The men know each

other and are accustomed to building roads and erecting camps and clearing trees. I suggest that this unit ought to be kept together—they are helping the United Nations to win the war—after the war let them go back to Newfoundland as a unit and help to develop their own country.
Do not underrate the tourist traffic. We all know that France drew an enormous revenue from it before the last war, but does the House know that Canada, that great wheat and exporting country, actually got more from the tourist traffic before the war than from the whole of her wheat? That is an astonishing fact. Here is a country, with all these amenities, which might well attract a lot of visitors, and there can be no more attractive country in which to spend a holiday. Newfoundland is right on the map now in regard to Trans-Atlantic Air Travel. Anyone who has gone into the question knows that it is only profitable, or the least unprofitable, when the long hop is as small as possible. The longer the hop the greater the amount of petrol you have to carry and the less the pay load. Therefore trans-Atlantic aeroplanes will be bound to land at the nearest point each side of the Atlantic. The nearest point to Great Britain is Gander in Newfoundland. The other nearest point is Goose Bay in the Labrador. I am very sorry to hear that has been leased to Canada for 99 years. I must speak frankly and tell the House that Newfoundland resents this very much. I must tell the House what the feeling of Newfoundland in the matter is, but I hope at any rate that though Goose Bay has been leased for military purposes the rights of Newfoundland in regard to civil flying have been preserved.

Mr. Baxter: Were the people of Newfoundland consulted in any way under our present system of government as to the leasing of the territory of Labrador?

Sir D. Gunston: My hon. Friend knows that they were not consulted then, nor were they consulted in regard to the leasing of the American bases, which they took in an extraordinarily good spirit and realised it was all part of the united war effort. I do not think any of us realise what that meant to Newfoundland. After all, you can sit in the middle of St. John's and see one of the bases that have been leased. I do not think, human


nature being what it is, they like it. We would not if Hyde Park had been leased to Canada for 99 years. The fact that you have a terminus is very important; we know trans ocean steamers give the most employment at ports of final destination. The Transatlantic aeroplanes will use Gander and Goose as the Western Atlantic Termini. I believe the proper development of air travel can help Newfoundland very much in employment and in bringing the Island into closer contact with this country.
I want to say a word about the Newfoundland war effort. Newfoundland has a population of 40,000 men between 20 and 40, and 10,000 of them have joined the Forces, while 3,000 have come over as lumbermen. Others are busily engaged in fishing and getting food for the United Nations. Yet 1,500 have joined the Mercantile Marine. It is a wonderful record. After the last war we took away the R.N.R. training ship—one of the worst things we have ever done. They are marvellous natural seamen and they resented the training ship being taken away. After the war ships will be wanted to carry Newfoundland fish products, and they ought to be manned by Newfoundlanders. I hope that the Government will let them have an R.N.R. training ship there and start some scheme for training Newfoundlanders for the Mercantile Marine. Anybody who fought in France in the last war knew how wonderfully well the Royal Newfoundland Regiment fought. We went to their memorial service on the anniversary of Beaumont Hamel which they hold as their commeration day. After the war the regiment was disbanded. Now there are two Newfoundland Regiments of Artillery which are showing the usual Newfoundland spirit. We should not forget that Newfoundland Budget now shows a surplus and is lending a lot of it free of interest to this country. It would be a gracious act and much appreciated if we recognised the great war effort of Newfoundland by establishing a regular Newfoundland regiment, to be called the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. In order to ease the country's Budget, I suggest that it should be paid for by the British Treasury. I would not keep it in Newfoundland. Let it do its tour of duty abroad like any other regiment, and while

it is abroad let there be a British regiment in Newfoundland. That is a way to keep the two islands together. Why not go further and after the war let British regiments do their tour of duty in the Dominions and the Dominion regiments come and do their tour of duty in this country? That would be a fine way of bringing the Empire into greater personal contact.
The suggestions I have made, together with the suggestions of the hon. Member about social reforms, will cost money, but it would not be a fantastic figure. As far as I can ascertain, we could carry out this development programme and extend the social services at an expenditure of about £20,000,000 spread over 10 years. If we went in for a cheeseparing policy it might not cost less, but at the end we should have unhappiness and discontent. I suggest that with an expenditure which would be only about double as much as the grant-in-aid before the war, there would be something to show at the end of it. Surely it would be much better to spend money on developing the country and at the end have Newfoundland a proud asset and not an unwilling liability. For the constitutional reason it is important to help her to become self-supporting because if she does not she will be driven into choosing a half-way house. She can choose a half-way house if she likes, but I want her to be in a position in which she can go the whole hog if she so desires. How can this be done? I believe it can be done by working on some such lines as the Colonial Development Fund and Welfare Act. It would be possible under that Act to give a loan to Newfoundland free of interest for five years and at a low rate of interest for five more years. This would not interfere with her aim of self-government because, though that money might have to be under the control of the United Kingdom, it would in no way interfere with any of the ordinary functions which would come under the newly elected Government. I would put a string on that money because Newfoundlanders themsleves, who have a great suspicion of the old gang, would like to feel that it would be spent on development and would not be diverted to other purposes.
I left Newfoundland much more hopeful than when I went there. I believe that if we help her to develop herself, young progressive people and people who are


returning from overseas, realising that we see her worth and her importance, will be encouraged and will have faith in their own country. I did find a certain amount of defeatism. Let us help them to have faith and the will to get together and to organise among themselves in order to get a decent Government; they must not fail again. I am sure that if we take bold, far-sighted and generous measures the people in their turn will do their best to see that Newfoundland, which is not only the oldest Colony but the place, they and we are proud to remember, where the British Empire was founded, can become one of the more prosperous and the best governed parts of the British Empire.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out "as soon as practicable," and to add "forthwith."
I was reluctant to be called at this point, owing to the fact that the two hon. Members who would normally give me their support have unfortunately both had to leave the precincts, and in the event of their not coming back before I have concluded my oration. I am in the difficult position of being dependent entirely on the good will of other Members of the House and on my ability to persuade someone to second the Amendment. I want to bring to the notice of the House precisely what we have the opportunity of discussing to-day. The three hon. Members who formed the informal goodwill Mission to Newfoundland have put on the Order Paper a Motion in which they call upon the Government to take the necessary preliminary action for self-government as soon as practicable. All that I am suggesting in the Amendment is that the House should call upon the Government to take the necessary preliminary action forthwith. We do not ask that the Government should immediately take steps to get going a general election in Newfoundland. I am merely urging that the preliminary steps towards a restoration of self-government should not have to wait until the Government think it is practicable to take steps. I think that at the conclusion of this Debate the Government should have an instruction from the House of Commons to begin now to take the preliminary steps. I am making a very small demand. I am more insistent in making it because the Under-Secretary of State, in his speech on Government

policy in the Debate on the Address on Dominion affairs made this statement, and I have difficulty in understanding its true significance. In reply to an interruption by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), he said:
My hon. Friend is very impatient. If he will wait a little, he will hear a little more. There is, however, a widespread feeling that the return by even one single step to full responsible government would be a great mistake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1943: col. 599, Vol. 395.]
It is the Government's view apparently that they must not take even one small step.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I am sorry that the hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that to go straight from the present position back to the position which existed before the suspension of the Constitution and to do it in one single step would be a mistake, for public opinion in Newfoundland would be against taking one single step back to the position that existed before the suspension.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is reported as I have quoted it. It may be that it is Hansard's mistake. I take it that the hon. Gentleman's meaning is that the Government object to going back to the old position in one jump.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I did not say the Government. I said public opinion. If the hon. Member follows the statement which I made afterwards, he will find it is clear what the position of the Government is, and the alternatives.

Mr. Maxton: I know all about the alternatives. I wanted to be clear on the other point. I do not pretend to minimise the difficulties of this problem. I congratulate the three hon. Gentlemen who went out there on the very excellent work that they did. I chaffed about their going and made jests about it, but since they came back they have written reports of 30,000 words each. They were good enough to give me the opportunity of reading them, presumably all with the same idea that I required considerable education on the subject. I did each one of them the honour of reading the reports from beginning to end, and I admit that they were of great educational value to myself. In particular, I went through the report of the hon. and gallant Mem-


ber for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), hoping for light entertainment as I go to his other literary efforts. I was disappointed. There was a distinguished writer in my young days called Barry Pain, who delivered himself of the aphorism that nothing aggravates a man more than to be disbelieved on one of the few occasions when he tells the truth. A humorist must also feel that it is hard that on the one occasion when he does a bit of serious work it should be taken as a jest. I pay a tribute to the hon. Member and say that it was not a bit of humorous writing but a first-class study of both the geographical and the psychological problems involved.
Each of the hon. Members wrote his own report, and created a precedent which, I think, would be useful if it could be carried one step further. Those of us who have been members of Committees or Commissions appointed by this House know that usually we are got into alignment and append our names to some rather dull formal document. The three hon. Members in this case were too individualistic to do that and each produced his own bit of work. It should be carried one step further; the Government should allow the three documents to see the light of day. It is all wrong that they should be circulated only in the very limited way that individual Members can do it privately. They did excellent work in surveying the problems and setting forth their ideas, and it would have been more gracious if, instead of asking the three hon. Members to submit their own Motion to the House to-day—and I argued for a Motion through the usual channels—the Government had themselves put a Motion on the Order Paper in which, among other things, they expressed their thanks to the three hon. Members. Not only had they to do the job of going to Newfoundland but they have had to come back here and undertake Parliamentary propaganda for getting something done.
Having said those things, I come now to the issue before us. When the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) was speaking he repeated what has been said again and again by the Government, that it was from the people of Newfoundland that the demand came for the taking away of their democratic assembly. Though that is true it is an

awfully unfair statement. This island of hard-working, simple folk came up in 1930–31–32–33–34 against economic difficulties that were facing the world. They were caught in a mess. They had borrowed money in London and in Wall Street and they were being messed about by their creditors. I suppose it would be regarded as immoral advice if I said the right thing for them to have done was what every business man does when he gets into an inextricable financial mess, He takes proceedings in bankrupty. He says, "There are my assets and there are my debts. Here you are, make the best of it." He pays, perhaps, 2s. 6d. in the £, or 6d., or something of that kind. But Newfoundland did not want to do that and the British Government did not want them to do it.
They were not the only country in the world that had this particular problem. Germany had it. No single problem in Germany leading to the rise of Nazi power was more potent than this problem of external debt and the inability to pay the interest. When the great Labour and Socialist International met in Vienna in 1931 to discuss ways and means of helping the German people in their difficulties, the one recommendation they could make was to tell them to change their bankers and get better terms for their external loans. In this country in 1931 the Labour Government, of which the hon. Member for North Camberwell was a member, came up against exactly the same thing. They were in difficulties with the bankers both in London and Wall Street, and there were the spokesmen of the Conservative Party on the Opposition Front Bench, and they just simply held up the white flag and surrendered and the National Government came into power The Newfoundlanders were not the only body of people who found in 1931 or round about that time that it was tremendously difficult for a democracy to keep its head above water. They were ground between the upper and the nether millstones. There were unemployed populations crying for bread on the one hand and bankers calling for their interest and dividends on the other. It was in these circumstances that the political leaders of Newfoundland requested that Newfoundland's Constitution should be suspended.

Mr. Ammon: I admitted all this in my speech.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member admitted it, but I am laying an entirely different emphasis upon it. I am pointing out that when the Newfoundlanders were up against problems that Russia solved by revolution, that Hitler met by a Fascist régime, and that this country met by a National Government, they said "We have thrown in our hand too. We cannot carry on." It is not fair, in my view, to bring that up as an argument in favour of our being rather leisurely about the restoration of self-government. I have the Statute and the report of the Debate in this House. The House is bound, in honour, to restore self-government to Newfoundland as soon as it has got out of its financial difficulties and is sailing again on an even financial keel. As I said in a previous Debate, Newfoundland is to-day in a better financial position than is Great Britain. We are getting into debt every month, every week; we are borrowing all over the place. Newfoundland is not only not borrowing but is lending, and lending to His Majesty's Government free of interest. Therefore, I say, the conditions have now been met that make it obligatory upon this House to restore self-government to Newfoundland. But there is the other point, and that is what the Government are resting upon now, and what the Commissioners are backing them up in, and that is that there must be a request from Newfoundland as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What about the quotations that the hon. Member for North Camberwell read?

Mr. Ammon: What I read from the newspapers was that they themselves say that they are not yet fit to take over responsible government and I proposed means whereby they could come to it by steps.

Mr. Baxter: The Under-Secretary, in a speech a few days ago, distinctly said that self-government would be restored when the country was solvent and when, as a necessary adjunct, the people asked for it.

Mr. Maxton: In the Schedule to the Act there are the two conditions: one, financial solvency, and the other an expressed wish from the Newfoundland people. We started asking Questions in Parliament about this business 12 months ago, on the initiative of people in Newfoundland, who remembered that when, in 1933, their Parliament

was taken away I had put up a fairly strenuous opposition to the change. Quite spontaneously, without any approach from me, letters and cables began to come to me from different sections of the community in Newfoundland—from individuals, from professional men, from trades unions and from a body which has the resounding title of "The Board of Trade," though I understand that in Newfoundland it is not a part of the structure of Government, as is the case with the Board of Trade in this country, but is the representative organisation of the business community round about St. John's. Are the three hon. Members who went to Newfoundland trying to tell me that the trade union leaders, the professional men and the Board of Trade, who wrote to me urging that Newfoundland should have self-government restored have all changed their minds? I did not ask them to ask me, they did it on their own; and yet the three hon. Members come back and report to us that there is no desire among the people there for the immediate restoration of self-government and, indeed, that there is reluctance on the part of Newfoundlanders to take an active part in political life.
For the last three weeks I have been spending some time in a place called Acton, and the results of the activities out there were seen after Question time in the House to-day. There was returned to this honourable House after a three weeks' campaign a Member of Parliament who had fewer votes than his predecessor had a majority. Only 16 per cent. of the electors were sufficiently interested to go to the poll. That was in London, where the Mother of Parliaments lives, where they have the benefits of a great daily Press, where they have more Members of Parliament than we have for the whole of Scotland, where they have that great democratic assembly, the London County Council, and God knows how many local borough councils in addition—28, I believe. Only 16 per cent. of the electorate took the trouble to vote after having been stimulated for about three weeks by four different groups. If I had wandered up to Acton, a stranger in a strange land, as the three good-will missionaries wandered into Newfoundland, and started calling on the people, as I understand our friends did in Newfoundland, or speaking to them in "pubs" or at street corners and saying


to them, "What do you think about a General Election; how do you think Great Britain ought to be governed?" what do hon. Members think their response would be? Some of my hon. Friends suggest that I could not tell what their answer would be without being vulgar, and I do not intend to be vulgar.
We had a two days' Debate on foreign affairs this week, and I heard hon. Member after hon. Member describe exactly how Germany is to be governed, how Yugoslavia is to be governed and what should be done about the Lebanon and Algiers. In fact they discussed what was to be done in almost every corner of the globe. It appears that we know just exactly what we are going to do; we are going to re-educate the Germans among other things. The British Empire that has had democracy for the best part of a century, and the three Commissioners and the Government all think that they are not fit to be trusted with democracy until a considerable period of time has elapsed and a process of re-education has taken place. That might be a good way to treat Germans; I do not know. I do not think it would even work with Germans.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is going back to a Debate of two days ago. The hon. Member should keep to the Debate, as many other Members want a chance to take part in the discussion.

Mr. Maxton: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I can only apologise and say that I do not often have to merit your rebuke. I will keep very close to the matter under discussion, but I think that the word "forthwith" should be substituted for "as soon as possible," so that the preliminary steps can be put into operation immediately and an election held in Newfoundland. I feel that the people of Newfoundland should be brought up against their own problems as soon as possible, so that they can make up their minds how to face the responsibilities of self-government and so that they can begin to organise political parties and get people interested. They must face all the essentials now, before a General Election can be held. The fact that the Commission of Government will do this thing and the next thing, and so on, and that they will spend £20,000,000

in social services in exchange for democracy is no contribution to how Newfoundland is to be governed. I could give you a whole lot of advice as to the steps which ought to be taken. I could suggest to you that trade unionists who have the necessary knowledge could go out and get in touch with their opposite numbers in Newfoundland and get things done. I could suggest a whole variety of ways in which the people of Newfoundland could be stimulated into making the most of their island and getting a decent existence for themselves, but it is not my job. My job here is to see that the people of Newfoundland are put into the political position to do all these things for themselves, and, therefore, I am asking the House, while recognising the good work that the three visitors have done, and while recognising the statement that has been made twice from that bench, that the Government should recognise their statutory and moral responsibility in this matter. It is not good enough merely to recognise that responsibility in an academic way. The Dominions Office must be told that Newfoundland must start now to prepare for self-government. I beg to move.

Mr. Baxter: Has the Amendment been moved?

Mr. Speaker: I did not accept the Amendment; I thought it was too limited. I do not agree to accept it now.

Mr. Maxton: I was called upon to move the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think you were in the Chair at the time. The Amendment was read at some length. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a very short while ago I understood you to call me to Order because I was speaking somewhat more widely than the Amendment warranted.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment on the understanding that it is a very limited one. It is "now" instead of "as soon as possible." It is a very limited point.

Mr. Stephen: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was not in the House when the independence of Newfoundland was taken away, but I was responsible for the various Amendments that were on the Paper at that time when the taking away of the freedom of the Newfoundland


people was determined on the Floor of this House. Consequently, I have a good deal of interest in this question. I think that the House would be doing a great service to the people of Newfoundland and a great service to the people of this country, and to the cause of democracy generally, if this Amendment were accepted and carried to-day. I would like to join with my hon. Friend in thanking the Commissioners who went to Newfoundland for their services, but at the same time I would desire to make the point that their political colour and their political outlook were practically the same. They were all Members of a very Conservative political outlook. It is possibly true that they were from different parties, but, possibly, the main difference in their political outlook was that their sense of humour was slightly different rather than their political sense. I do not think that there is any real ground now for not giving to the people of Newfoundland the immediate opportunity to govern themselves. They have fulfilled all their financial obligations They are just as well in the position to govern themselves as those wise men of Gotham who are in charge at the present time under the supervision of the British Government here.
When I look across at that Bench, and without wanting to be the least bit disrespectful to the Minister in charge today, I feel that some of the people I have met in Newfoundland would be just as capable of governing as anyone on that Bench. In seconding this Amendment I want to say this. Just now there is a great deal of discussion as to the future government of this country and that country. There is the question that arouses a great deal of attention in the United States of America as to what is going to be the future of the bases that the United States have got in several parts of the world. I notice also that the editor of a famous paper in the United States has suggested that Scotland should come into the United States of America as a new State, and I give the warning to this House to-day that unless it is prepared forthwith to give to Newfoundland its freedom and the right to govern itself, it is not beyond practical politics that the people of Newfoundland will say, "Well, if you are not willing to give us that freedom, we are going to take what steps lay open to us in the matter." An hon. Member said to me, "Never." That is exactly what this

House used to say in the days before the American independence. The same type of mind said "Never," in that determined way, but the United States did break away from this country. I can see Newfoundland in future becoming a State in the United States unless this country is prepared to honour its obligations as the Newfoundland people have honoured their financial obligations, and to give an opportunity forthwith to the full government of themselves. They are just as capable of doing that as any of the three Commissioners are of governing them, and perhaps the ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry is more capable than some of the Ministers who are obstructing our proposals.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I intervene for a short time to give a reason against the adoption of the Amendment. The desire of the Government is to get back to self-government as soon as it is practicable. Hon. Members below the Gangway want to do it whether it is practicable or not. The suggestion of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment was that here is a wicked Government obstructing the burning desire of the people of Newfoundland at once to go back to Parliamentary government. I do not know on what the hon. Member forms his opinion. I will give briefly my experience.
When I went to the Dominions Office, I had been interested in this matter previously and, like hon. Members below the Gangway, I had opposed the setting-up of this particular form of government. I still think it was a mistake. I know that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) took the same line. We also did not like the economic set-up in the island. I began to look into the matter. I had a report from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), who had just been out to Newfoundland. I thought the best thing to do was to see some of the people of Newfoundland, and I was able to visit a number of people who were working for the war, and particularly a large number in Scotland and some who were serving in this country. I thought that the best thing I could do as soon as possible was to go over and see what were the views of the people of Newfoundland themselves. I do not necessarily take resolutions of boards of trade at their face value, and I do not believe that newspapers are necessarily the voice of the people. They may be the voice of the proprietors. I


thought the best thing was to go there and get first-hand experience.
I did not have very long, and travel is difficult in that country. I only had about 10 days, but I did try to see as many people as I could. I saw leading merchants, officials, trade unionists, fishermen, judges and people of every kind in trying to collect the views of the people on this subject. I was interested when my three hon. Friends returned and they spoke to me, to find out that, after their longer experience and with the advantage they had of visiting many of the parts which I could not visit at that time, in no respect did they disagree with the views which I had formed in that rather short visit. It is not a question of whether the people in this country think or do not think that the people of Newfoundland are fit to govern themselves, but of what the people of Newfoundland think themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that, up and down the country, there was not this unanimous desire to get back to the particular form of government they had before. Some thought there might be a half-way house, but no one that I met wanted to go back to just the form of government they had before.
The second thing that struck me was that, as it is now 10 years since representative government was done away with, it was a deplorable thing that, perhaps with some very slight exceptions, there was no local government on the island and therefore there had been no practice in forms of democracy. I do not hold with my hon. Friends below the Gangway that rather old-fashioned Victorian optimism that you merely tell people to govern themselves and everything goes all right. Experience shows that it is one thing to have the forms of democracy and another thing to be able to work them. We have seen many most excellent Constitutions fail owing to the fact that the people were not able to work them. In that island, there has not been this practice, and, furthermore, because there has been no practice for 10 years, adults right up to the age of 30 have never cast a vote.

Mr. Maxton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are people up to 28 years of age in this country who have not cast a vote in a General Election?

Mr. Attlee: I quite agree, but there are people like my hon. Friend carrying on their functions in Parliament, and therefore the people to whom he refers do know what representative government is. People have not had that advantage in Newfoundland, and they have had no object lesson. Another point which does not seem to have struck hon. Members below the Gangway is that Newfoundland is making a very notable contribution to the war effort. Youths of Newfoundland are serving on ships and in the Army, as well as in the lumber camps, and that again makes it difficult to have an immediate General Election or to take some immediate steps to restore self-government by a stroke of the pen. They are all British subjects, and they naturally wish to get back to self-government, but I can assure hon. Members that no one I spoke to wanted an immediate return to self-government or a return to exactly the form of self-government they had before.
The unfortunate—as I think—Act which was passed, against the views of some of us in this House, provided for the setting-up of a Commission, but did not provide any way for bringing it to an end or for setting up a new Constitution. It was a very remarkable omission. What we have said on behalf of the Government is that my Noble Friend will take steps to ascertain what machinery will be most acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion and to devise means to bring it into effect at an appropriate moment. I think it is really better that we should try to get from the Newfoundland people, by consultation, their view of the kind of machinery they would like set up—to determine their future Constitution than to act on purely a priori lines, or the lines suggested by hon. Members below the Gangway; and put them back 10 years, where they were 10 years ago, and where it certainly does not appear they necessarily want to go to now.
Therefore, so far from there being any wavering about this, we have acted, first of all by inquiry, and a democratic inquiry. I was extremely obliged—I think all the House was—to my three hon. Friends who visited the island and made contacts, because it is not easy where there is not machinery for collecting public opinion, in a large country scattered into a number of small villages, with very few towns, to ascertain what the general run of public opinion is. I think an extremely


valuable service was done. I accept the views put forward by the three hon. Members who have visited the island and who did personally talk with the people of Newfoundland a good deal more willingly than I do the a priori view of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who has not been there and seen the situation, and who with all his ability must necessarily take his views at second hand. I suggest that this House would be right to take the line of the Government, that we should try to ascertain as soon as possible from the people of Newfoundland what they consider to be the most practical way for getting machinery set up, ascertaining the kind of Constitution they want, rather than taking the line of "Let us give them what we think would be good for them. Let us put them back exactly where they were."

Mr. Maxton: That is what we are doing now and what we are proposing to continue indefinitely, governing by gauleiters. That is government in Newfoundland now.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is quite wrong. He is suggesting that now, without consulting the people of Newfoundland and against what our own Members who have been there have said is the view of the people, we should, in accordance with the theoretical views of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, proceed by giving them something which on the best evidence, as far as I can make out, they do not want at present. I suggest that full consultation of the people of Newfoundland in order to find out what they want is more democratic and more practical. I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Riley: Could my right hon. Friend be a little more explicit as to what he has in mind as to the full consultation of the people of Newfoundland? Would he suggest how that consultation should take place and how the various sections of the people are to be invited to express their views?

Mr. Attlee: If my hon. Friend would look back to the last Debate we had on this matter, he would find that there were suggestions made that there might be some kind of convention to get representative people of various kinds together. It is obviously difficult, when there is no democratic machinery, to get the views of the

people, but there is this suggestion of trying to get a cross-section, to get a kind of convention in order that some kind of proposition might be framed to put before the people of Newfoundland. One has to remember that this matter has not been placed before them at all and to ask them "Yes" or "No" has all the disadvantages of a plebiscite.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest to the House that we dispose of this Amendment, for it is a limiting Amendment. If hon. Members agree, I will put the Question.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Amendment put, and negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I think we are all grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister first for helping to arrange this Debate and for giving this subject the time which it deserved. Also we are very glad that he has been able to get down to the House and make the statement he did, even if it was a somewhat limited one. In my opinion this House was not properly aware of the action that it took in 1933. There was a small group of Members who seemed to know what would happen, and the Deputy Prime Minister practically admitted that he was one of that group. What happened in this House in 1933 was a monstrous denial of democracy. Ten years have passed by, and because that has come to pass which everyone knew would come to pass, because the people of Newfoundland have lost their political instinct very largely, the Government are looking at the matter as though nothing could be done about it, almost with a sense of satisfaction, as if to prove that what they did in 1933 was right. Let us admit that there were desperate circumstances. Sir Richard Squire's Government had been in office for a long time and had become very corrupt. But this is something I have not heard in any of the Debates, that there was a General Election and that the Squire Government was swept out of office. I think every member of the party except two was defeated. A new Government was formed on the policy of retrenchment and reform, headed by Mr. Allerdice. The economic blizzard which had crashed Wall Street and which was to bring us to the very edge of bankruptcy struck Newfoundland. They could not meet the de-


mands for interest. They had not enough money in the Exchequer to pay their way, and the misery in their country was very great. The question has arisen to-day, and it has been said over and over again that Newfoundland asked us for a Commission Government. That is only partially true. They were in extremis and sent word to us, "Will you send a Royal Commission to inquire into our difficulties?" We did so. It was the Royal Commission that recommended that the Parliament House which had been open for a 100 years must be locked and barred.
All this happened in the oldest overseas territory this country had, which for 85 years had been a Dominion. Did we say to this new Government, this untried Government, "We will help you, we will co-operate with you"? Not a bit. The Royal Commission said, "You are finished. We will take from you your Dominion status. We will close your Parliament and we will put in a government by commission. That is what they recommended, and the Allerdice Government could do nothing but humbly petition his Gracious Majesty to wind up the democracy of Newfoundland.
In the Debates at that, time the noble Lord opposite played a very fine part in opposing it. So did the Deputy Prime Minister. There was another Member of the Government who I wish were here today to repeat the words he said with prophetic prescience on that occasion. I refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Aircraft Production. This is what he said then. I ask the House to be patient with me if I quote him. We do not realise what we did at that time. The Minister of Aircraft Production said:
This is the first time that there has been any inroad on democratic government of any dominion, the first time we have ever taken a retrogressive step in that gradual advance to free government within the Commonwealth.
He added:
It does not necessarily follow that the solution of the troubles of Newfoundland is bound up with the abolition of democracy.
There for once, if he never did it again, he spoke in the language of Burke. He concluded:
Capital punishment is not the only punishment for democracy.

He went further. Realising that to take from the people of Newfoundland the exercise of democratic government, the exercise of the franchise, with the discussions and elections that go with it, would result in their becoming politically paralysed—and the three hon. Gentlemen who have come back tell us that the people have lost political interest very largely—the Minister of Aircraft Production moved an Amendment to the Bill, to limit the unhappy experiment to three years, because he said, "If you do not do that, these people will lose the political instinct." He foretold exactly what has happened.
What was the financial crisis that let Newfoundland down? It is not a pleasant story. It starts with the Squires Government. The Squires Government did many good things, but they became terribly corrupt. In 1933 Newfoundland owed, all told, about £20,000,000. Of that 26,000,000 dollars were owed to the bankers of New York in gold bonds payable at the gold price. Another 6,000,000 dollars had been loaned by the Canadian banks to help to pay the interest. The Canadian banks charged on that five and even five and a half per cent—a very heavy rate of interest, indicating that they took a certain risk. The rest was owed here. Newfoundland tried to pay her interest. When she could not, we took the debt over. Her interest charges on her external loans were over £1,000,000 a year. Had she not had to pay that on the year when she went bankrupt, she would have had 3,000,000 dollars surplus in her Treasury to meet the cost of the social services.

Earl Winterton: To what social services does my hon. Friend refer?

Mr. Baxter: They would have been able to raise the unemployment dole and so on, and pay for these health services which they wanted to create at that time. We helped Newfoundland out; there is no denying that. We converted the loan to 3½ per cent., and we guaranteed it here. Then we paid back New York and the Canadian banks. The British investor, whose bonds had fallen to 25, had the satisfaction of seeing them rise to 85. Newfoundland owed us £20,000,000 when that conversion started. At the end she still owed us £20,000,000, but New York


had enjoyed the rather unusual experience of having had a debt paid by this country for Newfoundland and the Canadian banks, which had gambled a bit on the loan, got their money back. The British people had secured their investment. Then we decided to turn back the clock, and to bring to our oldest possession the institution of taxation without representation, something which one would have thought we had dropped from the time of the American rebellion.
These were the first three things we promised. We agreed to put Newfoundland on her feet as speedily as possible, secondly to promote the political education of her people, and thirdly to restore the Constitution—which we had never revoked, but merely suspended—as soon as the island was self-supporting again. In that Act itself there is no mention of a request from the Newfoundland people; that is in the Commission's recommendations, but not in the Act itself. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the Minister says that it is in appendix to the Act. In the actual Clauses it does not appear. The fact is that the Newfoundland Commission of Government have governed as civil servants always will, honestly, without imagination. To promote the political education of the Newfoundland people is our second pledge. Instead we have deprived the people of their political education. We are pledged to restore the Constitution when Newfoundland is solvent. You have heard that Newfoundland has been lending us money. She has been solvent for nearly three years; she has considerable cash reserves now. But we have decided that we must not honour our pledge to restore her independence—I grant the Minister the point—unless the people ask for it.
I ask the Under-Secretary to explain the position of the Government. Does he believe that we are trying to deal with Newfoundland on the basis of a means test, on a Micawber style of finance—income £20, expenditure £20 0s. 6d., self-government; income £20, expenditure £19 19s. 6d., no self-government. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I have it twisted: Mr. Micawber got things twisted too. At any rate, 6d. too much expenditure, no self-government; 6d. on the right side, self-government. It is a poor thing. Do this Government lay

down that Newfoundland must be solvent before we help her? That seems a very sad thing. I hope I carry my noble Friend with me on this point. When Newfoundland owed us money, we put in the Commissioners. You have heard how Newfoundland is now paying us money: I should say that we have had on deposit about $10,000,000. Suppose we cannot pay it when the war is over. Will Newfoundland be entitled to send three Commissioners to Britain and close this House? It sounds absurd, certainly, but the principle is the same. I will not touch on the point about the bases, because that has been dealt with, but I suggest that to give a 99 years' lease to Canada or to the United States on Newfoundland territory without the people of Newfoundland being consulted, is a very dangerous thing. Suppose that when they get self-government they repudiate it. What is the charge that will be made against us by the nations with which we entered into the arrangements in the first place? This is storing up serious trouble.

Earl Winterton: It is just as bad with the West Indies.

Mr. Baxter: Yes. After all, we have bases in Iceland, but Iceland takes them back when the war is over. The Prime Minister of Canada has laid it down that any territorial concessions to other nations by Canada will return to Canada when the war is over. Newfoundland has no voice: Newfoundland is run by the Dominions Office here. Can Newfoundland's High Commissioner raise his voice at the daily conference of High Commissioners in London? He cannot; because he is not allowed to attend. The man who was the High Commissioner is now a trade commissioner. The very offices of Newfoundland in Ottawa and Washington have been closed down—there has been some talk in the Press of opening them again. But do the people want self-government? Our hon. Friends have been to talk to them. The Press has been quoted. I have not time to read all the Press clippings, but I have some that are very recent. Let me read one or two. This is from the "Daily News":
The Commissioner Government has been the most degrading period in the history of this unhappy country—a period of moral, spiritual, social, cultural, and except for the war, economic decline.
These are very strong words. The "Daily News" says again:


As long as the Commission system stands there will be a stigma on the name of Newfoundland.
There are many other similar quotations. Let us look upon the future of Newfoundland as an Atlantic aerodrome. Ribbentrop described this country as the aerodrome anchored near the coast of Europe. Newfoundland is the aerodrome anchored near the Continent of North America. It is, from the point of view of a civilian aircraft base, most important. If war comes again, it will be doubly important to us. Are we to bind the people of Newfoundland to us in the only possible way? I put down an Amendment that there should be a General Election in three months' time, and if that Amendment had been called I would have explained what I meant. You cannot hand over the government of Newfoundland at once. You cannot do it automatically. But we should call a General Election in three months' time after 1st January to elect delegates to a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of creating a Provisional Government, that Government to work with the Commission Government for the gradual handing over, and then for it to go in one year's time to the country with a general reconstruction policy. They say we cannot do this because the young men of Newfoundland are overseas fighting. The one difficulty of that is that these young men are going to come back to their country to find a Government without any post-war policy at all. They do not want to come back to take part in politics; they want jobs, work and a future.
Let me end with these words. We never should have taken from Newfoundland the right of self-government. It was undignified and unworthy of the traditions of this country. I say to Newfoundland from this House, "We do not, as a Mother Country, give self-government as a prize, as a lollipop. We give it as a command." There comes a point in the history of every country of this Empire when self-government comes as a challenge and a command, and in that tradition we should say to Newfoundland, "Now call your leaders together, arrange to govern yourselves, and we will stand by you through bad times and good times, not rating less high your democratic rights than your financial solvency.

Govern yourselves, come side by side with us into the future," and let us end our own shame here for having closed a Parliament that had governed for 100 years.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: I am moved by the course of this Debate and by the compliments of hon. Friends opposite to make not a protest but a respectful request to His Majesty's Government about these blessed reports of ours. I hope that I have not more than the ordinary vanity of a professional writer, and although it is a new experience for me to write 30,000 words, not merely without pay but without publication, I am prepared to suffer if it is in the public interest.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Were they in verse?

Petty-Officer Herbert: Not all. But I make this request for the practical advantage of the House and the people. The background of this business is so complicated and important—the House observed the modest way in which my two colleagues hurried through innumerable subjects. It is quite impossible unless you have that background, to understand what happened. You cannot discuss education in Newfoundland without a long description of the extraordinary denominational system to which reference has been made. You cannot discuss trade or agriculture without going into the Gulf Stream and the Labrador currents and thousands of other things. I have seen something of the Empire, but I think that little Newfoundland is about the most testing and complicated puzzle in the whole Imperial scene. Something of the religious, political and indeed, industrial problems of Ireland and of India, the size of Ireland, the title of a Dominion, the population of Bradford, the history and habits of Dominion government and the social services of a neglected Crown Colony—all the problems of Empire are crammed into one little place. We have done our little best to try and make these things clear.
I ask the Government, though I acquiesced in the decision of the Dominions Secretary that our reports should not be published—I recognise the reasons, though I think they were exaggerated—to consider whether they would like to cut out any parts they think to be un-desirable


or "filthy pictures" and let the House have the rest of them. None of the passages which anybody is afraid of, by the way, are derogatory to Newfoundland. They are frank, honest people and we told them exactly what we thought about things when we were there.
The "simple"—and I put "simple" in inverted commas—questions we really have to answer are, Is Newfoundland likely to be self-supporting in the strict economic sense, say, within two years after the war? and, Is she to be denied self-government until she is self-supporting in that way? My answer to both questions is, "No." That sounds simple, but it is not; nothing is simple in this affair. It would be delightful and easy, and nothing would please me more than, to say, "Newfoundland is to have her two Houses of Parliament in action tomorrow." Whatever may be the truth about the history of this sad business—I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) have said—and whether they are right or wrong, I should like to thank them for having kept the name and affairs of Newfoundland so well before the people as they have done—the present situation was not of our seeking and is no particular fun for us. It was no fun for us to go round that island as representatives of the British House of Commons, and responsible for an anomalous autocratic régime, sometimes popular and sometimes unjustly unpopular—to go into their Houses of Parliament and find that we had made them a den of civil servants. If anyone "carries the baby" he expects to hear an occasional whimper from the child, but it must be very galling to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench here to be abused by friends of the baby for not incontinently throwing it away.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green really doubts what we sadly say—that there is political atrophy in Newfoundland—I will read him a passage from one of the Newfoundland newspapers in a few moments. We may have caused this atrophy but there it is. The last time I addressed this House I pointed out that there were some 100 Members who did not know what the rights of Private Members were; that if they were given the opportunity of introducing a Private Bill to-morrow they would not

know how to begin. There is a similar sort of situation in Newfoundland. No man can name the national leader of the future. No man can say, "This is my party, and this will be my candidate when elections return." We saw the beginnings of a new Labour Party there, but we never heard of any other party. The whole gear is out of action. All that can be remedied, I think, by what we proposed, and by what I think the Government have in mind. But it is idle to ignore that that is the factual picture. I have here "The Daily News," from which almost everybody has quoted today. It states:
If Mr. Baxter, with the backing of the Beaverbrook papers, which he appears able to command, wants to serve our cause most effectively he should come out here and talk to us and put himself into the position of a thoroughly informed advocate.
That is a little unfair, because everyone cannot go everywhere. But here is the point:
There are other questions besides sentiment about the self-government of this Dominion before we take up again the full responsibility of Dominion autonomy. To have self-government dropped into our laps before we have had the opportunity to prepare for it, to find leaders and national policies and to discuss financial and economic questions would be harmful to our interests.
I mention that because it confirms our sad conclusions. The islanders are uncertain of themselves—and it may be our fault—both politically and economically. It is quite idle, although the Motion appears to do it, to consider either of these elements alone. Freedom is not enough: and prosperity is not enough. I am quite sure that if you gave two Parliaments to Newfoundland tomorrow and said nothing about their economic future they would not thank you very much. On the other hand, if you gave them all the money in the world they would still expect, rightly, I think, to have some say in their affairs. I put my name to the Motion and I do welcome the announcement of the Government, so far as it goes. I do not blame them for not having had time to make an announcement on the economic side, but I must warn them that this will not be the last Debate on Newfoundland if we can help it. At some fairly early date some positive pronouncement on the economic side must be made.
May I say a few words on the political and constitutional problem? I hope the


House will forgive me if I use the words "I" and "my" a good many times. Although we are substantially unanimous we differ on some points, and it is difficult to remember where we are unanimous. Three weeks after I reached the island I suggested that an announcement should be made on the lines of that which has been made. I thought, by the way, that the Deputy Prime Minister went a little too far—though of course he was quoting his own experience—when he said that nobody wanted exactly what they had before. We did meet some who want violently and loudly what they had before, although they may not be the majority.
We should announce, I suggested, that, say, two or three years after the war, or from now if you like, that we intended to restore full self-government to Newfoundland unless by a plebiscite one year before that they had chosen some other form of government. But that interim period should not be regarded as another period of autocratic alien rule but should be used by Newfoundland, with such assistance as we can give them, (a) to find out what they want, and (b) to prepare the people for a renewal of political activity, to help the emergence of leaders and the formation of parties and stimulate interest and the like. For that purpose I suggested the formation of a Council of Citizens, appointed by the Governor, from every class and body. There are a great many bodies in Newfoundland—the West Newfoundland Association, the Board of Trade, co-operative societies, and so on, who are already studying the problems of the future. I suggested that they should frame the questions which should be put to the people at the plebiscite and that when they had finished that part of their task they should get on with the business of political education. The wireless, for example, has not been sufficiently used. In scattered communities in winter-time the only method by which the Government can reach the people is by wireless which should be used for political and, for that matter, for school education. We should send out lecturers to teach people how to take the chair at meetings, to make speeches, to teach the history of their country, the value of local government, and so on, and actively assist a resurgence of political interest and act.
If I may, I should like to go back to the question, What sort of alternatives

are there to the original form of government which might be worth discussing? My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) mentioned the possibility that Newfoundland should elect their three Commissioners. That might do as a stop-gap for a short time, but it would not do for long, because the same troubles as there are now would exist. The people do not know what is going on. They cannot go into a Chamber like this and shake their fists at Ministers and ask them what they are doing—for example, about Goose Bay. Whatever we do about electing Commissioners, that difficulty would still remain. In our last Debate on this topic I was attracted by a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who, I am sorry to say, is ill. It was that it may be possible to consider the inclusion of Newfoundland in the United Kingdom on lines roughly, but not exactly, similar to Northern Ireland. That again, I believe, has been rather turned aside in high quarters, but I hope that high quarters will consider it because it meets the dilemma, as some call it, of my two main propositions that (1) Newfoundland must govern herself and (2) we must help her financially.
That seems to be a constitutional dilemma, but, after all, it is happening all the time in Northern Ireland, and no one notices it at all. It rests upon Imperial taxation, and the Newfoundlanders have such a strong objection to any form of taxation that at the first suggestion the idea of Imperial taxation might frighten them into the sea. But of course it would not be ordinary Imperial taxation; it would be taxation adapted to their needs and resources. There would be a special Newfoundland Budget, and I suppose we might reserve a few services. I hope high quarters will consider whether that could be carried out.
That would be one of the things to be discussed by the Council, which should be presided over or assisted, I suggest, by a big constitutional expert from this country and attended by representatives of the Dominions Office able at any moment to say what was in the minds of the Department. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nominated or elected?"] The Council of Citizens would have to be nominated, because there is no machinery for electing anyone. But that is a detail. Then it is possible


that they might say, "We want Dominion status, with two Houses of Parliament and the rest of it," but although they want to have a say in their own affairs, they do not put on Dominion airs. You do not hear the words "Dominion status" at all. So they might think it better to have a single Chamber, as in Ceylon or Jamaica, with elected and appointed Members face to face instead of having a bogus House of Lords which no one ever sees and no one respects. That is another alternative. There are two or three ideas thrown out. When the Council or Convention has discussed all these things and found out the kind of strength that there is in this, that or the other, they can decide what question shall be put to the people at the plebiscite. The question of how soon is one of detail. I suggested, I think, two years after the war.
But all this will be of very small consequence to the Newfoundlanders unless they have some confidence about their economic future. We have all unanimously suggested the frightening phrase "A 10 years' plan." The House will be surprised to hear that I do not pose as an expert, but I am certain that even if, say, two years after the war Newfoundland is able to maintain her social services at their present level, which is a deplorably low one—and that is doubtful—it is certain that without assistance from someone—and that someone must be us—they will never be raised to a level which will be compatible with the dignity of a British people under the British flag. Therefore someone has to assist. As my hon. and gallant Friend says, the more we went about the more faith we had in the place, and the future of the place; and given such schemes as the reorganisation of the fisheries, which I believe the Government have already approved of, and given the development of agriculture, roads and so on, I think it can be most confidently predicted that in 10 years they may be able to sail alone on an even keel, though, even then, it might be better for them to form part of a bigger economic unit. A high official, at my request, gave me a rough unofficial estimate of what would be the cost of a 10 years' plan. He worked it out in detail, including costs of annual maintenance, and the figure surprised me. It came to 80,000,000 dollars—£16,000,000. Over 10 years that is a very big figure to Newfoundland but a very small figure to us. I know that

there are a lot of "fleabites" about. The Empire is asking for "fleabites" everywhere, but, if that figure is correct, it is a remarkably small one, and it would make very little difference to us.
I know that it is asking a lot of this House and of British taxpayers, of whom I count myself no small part, to be generous not only with freedom but with finance. I never quite know what is meant by Imperialist, a word of which my hon. and gallant Friend is very fond. I am always rather surprised that a mind of such clarity should use such a woolly word. I am glad that England did not stay at home, does not stay at home and, please God, never will stay home. I am glad that we sent our sons from Bristol and from Poole to catch the cod and plant the flag of England and settle by the frozen seas.
But I recognise that, when they did so, they laid upon us an inescapable charge, and we cannot now avoid it. There they are still. Four hundred years ago Sir Humphrey Gilbert planted the flag of Queen Elizabeth on the spot above the harbour of St. John's, where on Commemoration Day they remember the Battle of Beaumont Hamel; and if you had stood there with us and seen the soldiers and sailors, the Girl Scouts, the Guides, the Church Lads' Brigade and the old gentlemen with their top hats and medals and ribbons and heard the talk of Devonshire and Somerset and Wales and Scotland and Ireland you would have said you were somewhere in the West of England, and you would also have said, "These are not people about whose future I can remain unconcerned." As I have said elsewhere, if anyone landed from a ship or a parachute in any part of that little island and listened to the talk he would say, "Perhaps I am in Devonshire or Somerset or Ireland or Wales." He would never say, "I am in the United States or in Canada."
In that simple physical fact is a great political truth, because I am sure that as long as we stand by them the last thing they want to do is to leave us. There is a picture of His Majesty in every home. There is an English name in every home. Ninety-nine per cent. of them are pure British. My interpretation of Imperialism is not, perhaps, everyone's. I never meet them, but I am told that some people think of the activities of our forefathers


in terms of dividends only. Others, more sensible, are thinking of duties and dividends, because not once or twice in our Island story the path of duty has led to dividends. In this case I address myself most earnestly to that part of the Imperial mind which is concerned with duty only. I am not offering any large capitalist enterprises to anybody, although there may be something coming that way.
I must, by the way, say a word about Labrador, because one of the things that has not been mentioned is that this island of 42,000 square miles, by a freak of history, a decision of the Privy Council and the cleverness of the present Lord Chancellor, who was their advocate, Newfoundland possesses 104,000 square miles of Labrador three times her own size. It is a rugged country which contains a large amount of timber, and it is believed a great many minerals which the Canadians are now prospecting for. I want to hear some announcement of Government policy about Labrador with regard not only to its development, but to the welfare of the people who live there, and consider themselves neglected. If we are to go on having the rule of Newfoundland, we musk see that Labrador is properly surveyed and developed. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for doing me the honour of sending me on this interesting trip. I do not know that we can do anything rapidly for self-government, but the sooner we can do it the better, and we must couple it with some generous financial assistance.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1943.
2. Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1943.
3. Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1943.

NEWFOUNDLAND

Question again proposed.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I was going to resume my seat, and I have risen only in order to annoy the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to rise simply in order to annoy another hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member should rise only to contribute to the Debate and not to annoy another hon. Member.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I spoke for less than half-an-hour, and I do not think that is an excessive time for a subject as large as this.

Earl Winterton: I must take the strongest objection to what the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) has said. He has broken every rule of etiquette in this House. I made a private, a very private and personal statement to him, of a certain character, and if he proposes to bring that up in Debate I take the strongest objection.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I am well aware that my Noble Friend has been here for 408 years.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Member had resumed his seat before I left the Chair.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I was trying to remember what my peroration was at that moment, and I heard my Noble Friend muttering things about giving someone else a chance to speak, and if it is against etiquette to object to what I think was a discourteous remark—

Mr. Speaker: Etiquette has nothing to do with the Motion now before the House.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I think my hon. Friends here will bear me out when I say that the interruption was loud and noisy, and really the Noble Lord cannot expect to be the only person—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I want to get on with it. I want to say that I believe the Government are on the right lines in regard to the political aspect of this problem, and that I hope they will go on with the same energy in regard to


the industrial and economic problems, without which the rest will not be of very much advantage to Newfoundland; and if anybody asks me what advantage there is in it to us I can only say that this child is our child, and for many good reasons we do not want to see a child of ours picked up, a tattered foundling, on the doorstep of the United States.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I have hardly been here long enough to appreciate these delicate points of etiquette, but I hope that as I grow up I may learn some of them. In regard to the Motion which we are discussing, there is only one thing in it to which I wish to take exception. Had those who drew it up consulted the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and myself, we should have been able to help them to draft it in a more suitable form. I do not like the words which appear at the end of line 1 and towards the middle of line 2:
on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of the acceptance in principle.
I do not see why we want the words "in principle." Surely Newfoundland, as our oldest Dominion, should have it as of right and not in principle. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his seat. I do not know whether this is a breach of etiquette or not, but I heard it rumoured abroad—and like most other men and a few women I am prone to gossip—that he said, when my name appeared as Seconder of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green, that he was glad to know that the hon. Member for Wood Green had his "Charlie Macarthy" to support him. I hope he will not take exception to my saying that. It is a new thing to me to be called a "Charlie Macarthy" by anyone, but when I have been here as long as the hon. Member it is very likely that I shall learn about that as well. I agree with a lot that the hon. Member for Wood Green said, but I also disagree with a lot. One of the things on which I disagree with him is that a lollipop is a prize. I should certainly not regard that as a prize. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is very much liked in this House and I think that now he has, perhaps for the first time, a very distinguished political future in that his party, now that it is allied with the powerful Common Wealth party, may well form the next Government of this

country particularly if the by-election at Skipton has the to days interval about which the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) spoke. I do not know that I can refer to Acton as another hon. Member did. I should draw a different conclusion. I happen to be chairman of the Association of the party to which I belong for that area, and the Acton by-election result shows the importance of all parties observing the party truce. The hon. Member also mentioned the loss of deposits. If the candidates are wealthy enough, let them forfeit the deposit.
I pass now to the Motion which we are discussing. There is an old saying, I think it comes from Cicero, that lack of gratitude is the worst of all the vices and also the most common. What I am worried about is that Britain will be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Newfoundland, as we were in the days when we lost the 13 American Colonies. We were taught at school in England that the majority of the people in the American Colonies were in favour of Britain and that the majority of the people here were in favour of the 13 American Colonies at the beginning of that unfortunate war. That situation will not arise, but I am most anxious that we should not be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Newfoundland. We know that the American Colonies—they do nut teach it in their history books, but that is the way it is taught here—did not revolt until the Indian menace had been put down and the French menace in the whole of North America had been subdued. It was not till after that, that they decided it was time to revolt. We ought to learn a little from those past events, although perhaps the position is hardly analogous.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), to whose speech I listened with great interest, mentioned several courses which were open to Newfoundland. One was to link up with the United States. I should hope, as I hope he and I am sure all the rest of us, and all Newfoundlanders as well would hope, that nothing of the sort will happen, but in that connection, and in regard to America I would like to say that when recently I spent six or seven months in America I found a curious frame of mind existing there. They think it is all right that America should have an Empire, but that


it is not a good thing for Britain to have an Empire. When they asked me about the British Empire and representative government I used to say to them, remembering that in some of the Southern States white people are outnumbered by two or three to one: "How many negro Congressmen are there in the American Congress?" The answer usually was that there did not happen to be any at the moment. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that it would be better for them to tidy up their own back garden before asking us to tidy up our front garden.
Another alternative is that Newfoundland should link up with Canada. I hope that to most Newfoundlanders that would be preferable. What is still most important is that they should be in a position to choose exactly what they want to do. I think that a function of Great Britain and of this House at the present time is to see that they are in a position to have self-government, to have what they want, go where they want and do what they want. That is what we can do and that is our function in the world, at any rate in regard to the British Empire. With regard to restoring Dominion status, I am not quite sure how vital that issue is at the moment, but I regard it as important that Newfoundland should have a Parliament of some sort. Frankly, I do not see how, otherwise, we can ascertain anyone's opinion there. We cannot take the voice of the Press. How representative is the voice of the Press? For example, when Mr. Roosevelt was re-elected, nine-tenths of the Press were against him. The Press is not always representative of the people's voice. Among the prefects of a school, very few are usually popular. I do not, therefore, see how government by Commission can ever be popular particularly as the Commissioners were appointed, I understand, in 1933. If they go on a little longer they will be like the 1922 Committee; we shall have to make the post hereditary.

Sir Percy Harris: What is the 1922 Committee?

Mr. Bull: Perhaps I might have a word with the hon. Baronet afterwards about that, and I may be able to convert him. Without a Parliament of some sort in Newfoundland, how can we possibly hear

what the popular voice of Newfoundland is? I would like to quote from a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. I hope he can hear me without difficulty. We cannot always hear him. He referred on 2nd December to the recommendation:
As soon as the island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting.
Are we really self-supporting? Suppose that the United States were to take over the government of these islands—but I am certain that they would not—are we self-supporting? How dare we lay down any stipulation like that? Let hon. Members be quite sure that if we are not prepared to put up some money for Newfoundland that country will not have to look far for someone who will gladly and willingly do it. The recommendation mentioned in the Under-Secretary's speech went on to say:
responsible Government on the request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1943; col. 598, Vol. 395.]
How in the world, without a Parliament in Newfoundland, can we find out whether the people of Newfoundland have made a request to Great Britain for Dominion status, or a return to self-government or however you wish to put it?
What worries me about this is that we should be blamed for anything which may go wrong. Furthermore, there is the question of the bases which have been mentioned many times before to-day. It is unfortunate that that action was taken when there was no Parliament to be consulted in Newfoundland. If there had been a Parliament it could have been asked for advice. We could still have sent commissioners and they might have asked Parliament to advise them on the question of those bases. When we restore self-government to Newfoundland the people will not like very much what has been done in that respect. There is an old American expression, dating from pre-Civil War days, which were the days of slavery in the slave states, and it is "Selling someone down the river." I am just a little afraid that there may be some such feeling about those bases.
I am not quite happy about the taxation system which exists in Newfoundland at the present time and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State, or


whoever will reply to the Debate in the few minutes I shall probably leave him, would say something to justify the position of taxation in Newfoundland. We do not want anything to arise there in any way analogous to the bitterness which was caused before the War of Independence. I know that a declaration has been made. I do not like it altogether and I have criticised it as well as I could. I hope a further and better declaration will be made. We all know about the patriotism and loyalty and the contribution made to the Empire and Allied war effort by the people of Newfoundland but, as I have said, I do not see how they can decide anything without a Parliament. Mention was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) of how valuable to Newfoundland and Canada the tourist traffic had been, but we must remember that when Canada had that very valuable tourist traffic—as it still has—they were the days of Prohibition in the United States. When people were not allowed to drink in the United States, they naturally drank in Canada and we exported whisky and gin in large measure, and that accounts to a large extent for the tourist traffic.

Sir D. Gunston: But the tourist traffic in Canada was very big just before the war and that was after the repeal of the Prohibition law of the United States.

Mr. Bull: Would my hon. and gallant Friend deny that Prohibition in the United States and non-prohibition in Canada, stimulated tourist traffic in Canada?

Sir D. Gunston: At the beginning.

Mr. Bull: I am quite content with that reply. The hon. Baronet asked for the formation of a Royal Newfoundland Regiment which could come to Britain and other Dominions. I would only say that I cannot see what confidence this regiment, for which he said we should pay, or Newfoundland, could possibly have in the British Government if the Government do not immediately increase the pay of serving soldiers and allowances for the dependants of British soldiers.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Labour Party have asked me to express to the good-will Mission our sincere thanks and appreciation for the excellent job of work they have done, for the clarity of their report to-day and the

constructive proposals which they have made to the Government and to the House. We should also like to say that we appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister did initiate this particular type of investigation and thereby bring the matter so closely to the notice of the House. We rather regret that the three reports which have been prepared have not been published, because we feel that there is a good deal of meat in them, particularly the sections concerned with social and economic reconstruction. We feel that it would have been to the advantage of the House if the more detailed information of the reports could have been brought to our attention.
The Labour Party vigorously opposed, ten years ago, the introduction of the non-democratic régime, and it has, I think, shown its interest in the Newfoundland problem ever since by its constant questioning of the Government on the progress being made. Therefore we on this side of the House yield to no one as to the nature of our demands throughout the years for the creation as speedily as possible of the conditions whereby self-government could be restored. We have consistently criticised the complete divorcement of the peoples of Newfoundland from the work of government. We have complained as to the secret way in which the Commission Government has carried on its work, the inadequacy of that form of government, as well as the general absence over the years of any comprehensive economic and social planning. Let me also say that while we have been conscious that the restoration of self-government was conditioned by economic recovery as well as by the expression of the wishes of the people, we have protested in the past that financial solvency should be made the test of the practice of democracy. That has been our position.
Nevertheless, we fear we have to deal with a situation in which there is a limited desire only for the immediat restoration of full self-government, and that certain preliminary stages are necessary before it can be made an effective principle. We deeply regret these circumstances, but we cannot lightly set aside the opinions which have been offered us to-day by the good-will Mission, and we cannot look at this problem apart from its economic and political setting.
The Government have made clear what their policy is to be, and we shall press that they will vigorously pursue that course, that immediately after the war Newfoundland shall examine her future and the form of her government most suited to her, for herself, and that the Government will take steps to see that the wishes of the people shall be respected. Meantime the Government also tell us they will push on with the creation of more local government and with the work of reconstruction. I must say that we wish that the Government would have done a little more than that, would even in this interim period have brought the Commission Government much more closely in association with the peoples of Newfoundland. I believe that as the chairman of the goodwill mission pointed out, there are some interim steps which might be taken in regard to the election of the chairman and his functions in the commission government, that he would cease to preside; that the selection of three Commissioners should be by elections from the general population, and that greater discretion should be given to Treasury officials with regard to expenditure. We expect the Government to push on along the road they have so broadly indicated, and that they will at the same time drive ahead in the field of local government. We want also the reconstruction proposals indicated to-day energetically pursued.
I am not quite certain whether we can subscribe to one of the views put forward by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) as to the machinery which should be created for ascertaining the will of the people. That of course is a debatable point which we cannot enter into at the present time. But I would like to suggest that now proposals about the Constitution are under the active consideration of the Government that at least they should give serious attention to what the Mission have said in respect to the improvement of the quality of the Commission, to increasing the efficiency of the Civil Service, and also in restoring an immediate contact with the people. I would like further to underline the point made by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University that right away definite steps should be taken in the political education of the people. That is all I have time to say.
We in the Labour Party are anxious for the full restoration of democratic government at the earliest possible moment, and we look forward to the near day when Newfoundland will again take her rightful place as a Dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations. Her people in this war have played a great and splendid part, and the great causes we are fighting to establish in the world must be applied to Newfoundland in reality and practice as soon as she herself desires that status and responsibility.

Earl Winterton: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way to me. I have only three minutes, or I should very much have liked to have said something on Newfoundland—I happen to have been one of the few hon. Members of this House who have spent a considerable time there: I have spent more time there than that spent by all the members of the Commission—but there is no opportunity now. I certainly make no complaint of the length of the speeches and particularly of the most eloquent speech of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), which I heard with great delight. I should like to congratulate him upon the manner in which he put his points in the House and also for the very eloquent tribute he paid to Newfoundland in the columns of the humorous paper for which he so appropriately writes.
May I say just this before the hon. Gentleman gets up to reply? I very much hope that this matter will not be left completely where it is to-day. I do not think—and here I think that those who have been out on the Mission will agree with me—that it is right that we should devote only a small part of a Sitting to a discussion of this all-important subject. In supporting what my hon. Friends have said, may I pay a particular tribute to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who opened the Debate, and to the valuable work they have done? As one in touch with some elements of opinion in Newfoundland, I who know the country would most earnestly beg the Government to afford a further opportunity for debate. I would suggest to Members in all parts of the House, if I may do so without offence, that we might get together at some future time and press the Government for a further discussion on this subject.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): We have had, I think, a most useful Debate to-day, and I will bear in mind the views expressed by the Noble Lord who has just sat down. The House will have heard the speeches of the members of the good-will Mission with great interest. The Government welcome and accept the Motion which stands in their names. They have shown how careful and how thorough has been the investigation which they have made into the conditions in Newfoundland. The House will be impressed by the fact that the three Members, while each summing up the situation in his own way, have arrived at substantially the same conclusions. The Government are very grateful to them for the valuable work they have done and the sympathy and understanding with which they inquired into the problems of the island.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) said he was not satisfied with the steps which the Government propose to take. He believes that, as the island has been able to balance its Budget—as everyone knows, that has been only on account of war-time conditions—representative government on the old model should be restored, without any kind of consultation with the people of the island. I would remind the House, as I did my hon. Friend, that the Annexe to the Newfoundland Act provided that self-government should be restored only after consultation with the people of Newfoundland. My hon. Friends the members of the good will Mission, who have a very recent acquaintance with the problem, have said that there appears to be little or no desire in the island for constitutional change during the war. The Newfoundland people look forward, as my hon. Friends have said, to a change after the war, but there is considerable difference of opinion as to what that change should be, in the circumstances which would be prevailing at that time.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to a resolution passed by the board of trade of St. John's—that is an unofficial body, similar to a chamber of commerce. That body did pass a resolution in favour of constitutional reform, and set up a sub-committee to consider the whole question. The deliberations of that body, however, served only to show how marked is the division of opinion in

the island. After examination, it confined itself to recommending that a Royal Commission should be appointed to hear evidence and to advise on the whole constitutional question; and even this suggestion met with very little support. I think hon. Members will agree that the proposals of the Government are in accord with the assurances given at the time when the Constitution was suspended, which met with the approval of the people of the island. It is our intention to act in every way up to the assurances we gave: it is not our intention to withhold responsible government from the people of Newfoundland.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), and I think also the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), referred to the proposals which they have made that three of the Newfoundland Commissioners should be elected and that the Chairman of the Commission should cease to be the Governor. My Noble Friend has carefully considered these proposals. He feels, however, that to introduce changes of this character at present might tend to prejudice the settlement towards which we are working. The election of half the Commissioners would raise questions of constitutional theory and practice. The Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. If the three Commissioners were elected they would in a sense be responsible to the electorate, as well as to the Secretary of State. Divided loyalties might very well affect the efficiency of the Government. With regard to the position of the Governor it is not generally known that one of the reasons why the Royal Commssion recommended that the Chairman should be the Governor is that the Governor has a different status; and that his presence in the chair would keep a proper balance between the Newfoundland Commissioners and the United Kingdom Commissioner, and thus correct any tendency for the United Kingdom Commissioners to establish a dominating influence. In practice, there has never been any difference of opinion between the Newfoundland Commissioners on the one hand and the United Kingdom Commissioner on the other, but the presence of


the Governor in the chair has served to reassure public opinion that the local point of view will have full weight.
I would point out that the Governor of a self-governing community acts on the advice of his Ministers and that the Governor of a non-self-governing Colony is responsible to the appropriate Secretary of State. But in the special case of Newfoundland the Governor in Commission—that is, the Governor acting on the advice of the Commission—is responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. If he ceased to be a Member of the Commission the Commissioners would be responsible to the Secretary of State direct, and not through the Governor. This would place the Governor in a very difficult position. Such a change, moreover, would be a departure from the arrangements made, with the consent of all concerned, in 1933, and it would be necessary to consult Newfoundland public opinion, to find out whether the people of Newfoundland would be agreeable to the change. My Noble Friend does not think that any minor change of this kind at the present moment would be desirable. The whole question of constitutional changes in Newfoundland will come up for consideration after the war.

Mr. Maxton: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard that the people of Newfoundland are ready for the change?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have not heard that that is the case. I do not know whether the hon. Member has.

Mr. Maxton: Shall we have an opportunity of reading the reports of the Members who formed the Mission?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell referred to the proposal which he put forward, for a 10 years' plan. It has been suggested in some quarters that if self-government was restored—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised this matter—the United Kingdom Government should continue to guarantee Newfoundland expenditure. Complete self-government, in the view of the Government, must mean responsibility for the island's finances. Any other course would mean a training in irresponsibility, rather than in responsibility.

Mr. Baxter: Then when we loan £70,000,000 to Austria should we demand that they give up their Government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: If my hon. Friend will wait I will carry my point a little further. This does not mean that any form of financial assistance should be ruled out. It means that the United Kingdom Government would not guarantee the island's finances. My Noble Friend feels that the Newfoundland people should consider their future prospects after the war and the possibilities of carrying on, allowing for capital expenditure and the maintenance of the social services. Only after making these calculations can they determine whether assistance will still be called for. If so, they should consider as the next step the bearing of the need for such assistance or the form of government best suited to the island.

Mr. Ammon: That sounds rather as though the Government are ruling out entirely any assistance to get the island on its feet. Surely that is not so?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, that is not what I said. I said that they make their calculations as to the future and take all relevant considerations into account, and that after that they should consider what form of government they would desire.

Sir D. Gunston: This is of vital importance. I quite understand that after the war they should see to what extent they can carry on their social services, but surely we are not a wait until after the war for this long-term policy to be formulated.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir. The Government are going into all these suggestions. All I am saying is that as far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned that is how the Government feel they should approach this matter. We cannot indefinitely be responsible for their finances and say at the same time that they should have complete self-government restored to them while we were guaranteeing their finances. That was the only argument I was putting forward. I was not saying that the suggestions which my hon. Friend put to the House would not receive most careful consideration.

Mr. Ammon: Nobody has asked for a definite assurance. The maximum period


we suggest is a ten years' development in which they should be helped and at the end of that they should go on with some definite plan. I wish we could obtain a definite answer.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am not in a position to give a definite answer. The Government have gone a good long way in putting forward a statement fairly soon after my hon. and gallant Friends returned.

Earl Winterton: And it says nothing on the constitutional issue.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot agree with the Noble Lord that the statement put forward on the constitutional issue says nothing.

Mr. Maxton: The Government statement is that, in principle, they are agreed that self-government should be returned to the island. That is all the statement they have made and they did not need to make that because that is in the Statute.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Oh, no, that is not the case. I could read out the whole of the statement that I made. They put forward definite proposals, and the hon. Member is going back on his own Motion. I said in the course of the last Debate on this question that my noble Friend would take steps to ascertain what machinery would be most acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion and devise means to put that into effect at the appropriate moment. We are going to take those steps immediately. But to come back to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell, His Majesty's Government have an open mind on the whole of this question and are prepared to await the conclusions of the people of Newfoundland with regard to the machinery to be set up before coming to a final decision.

Earl Winterton: Does that mean that the request made in all parts of the House for a further statement on the subject will be forthcoming during the present Session, or is it to remain definitely like this for the whole of the Session?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot give my noble Friend any assurance about a Debate, but I have told the House that all these matters are being carefully considered by the Government at the present time. On the one item that does not

satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton but satisfies most of the House, the constitutional question, the hon. Member for North Camberwell touched on the question of political union with Canada. That is not a new proposal. It was considered at the time of confederation and also in 1895 and has been considered since then. It is a question which must be decided by the people of Newfoundland because His Majesty's Government would not wish to interfere in any way.
With regard to the question of political union with the United Kingdom, I would like to say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University. Newfoundland, the three Members said in the course of their speeches, is intensely loyal, but it is essentially part of the North American continent. The facts of geography remain and although the air has brought Newfoundland nearer to this country, it also brings the island nearer North America. The position of representatives of Newfoundland in the United Kingdom Parliament would be somewhat anomalous. They would in the very nature of things be more interested in Trans-Atlantic affairs than in our own domestic affairs here. They would have far less interest in United Kingdom business than would the representatives from Northern Ireland, which is after all a part of these islands. I do not think there is any strong demand, or even any demand at all, in Newfoundland for this solution.
I would like to refer to the question which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury and the hon. Member for Wood Green with regard to Goose Bay. There was no airport at Goose Bay two or three years ago and an arrangement was made with the Canadian Government which enabled them to build an airport at Goose Bay. Nothing could be said about the arrangement or the agreement which was made at that time because for operational reasons it had to be kept secret. The cost of construction of the airport was entirely borne by Canadian funds. In return it was agreed that the Newfoundland Government should grant a lease to the Canadian Government for 99 years. The lease was to be for Defence purposes and there was no transfer of Newfoundland sovereignty. The use of the airport for civil aviation will be considered after the war. The Government


were unable to explain the position to the people of Newfoundland, but as soon as the Agreement has been concluded it will be published.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Do I understand that the Agreement has not been approved?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: It has not been concluded yet.

Captain Macdonald: Will the House of Commons know the terms of it before it is approved?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir, that is never the case.

Captain Macdonald: There has never before been a case where we have superseded the Government.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: We are, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, watching this matter closely. The Noble Lord referred in the last Debate to the social services, but I have very little time left in which to reply. Since the Commissioner Government have been in power they have made great strides in social services, as my Noble Friend knows. In 1934 2,800,000 dollars were spent on such items as education, public health, hospital construction, unemployment, widows' and orphans' and old age pensions, local councils, etc., but a large portion was spent on relief. This year that figure has risen to 5,000,000 dollars, of which only a small part has been spent in relief. It is chiefly in the field of public health that the Commissioner Government have made the greatest advances. When the Commissioners took over, tuberculosis and beri-beri were rampant and as a result of measures taken tuberculosis has very much decreased and beri-beri was stamped out by 1939, although there has actually been a certain recurrence of it during the past year. I think the proposals the Government have made are in general agreement with the views of the three Members who went out on the good-will Mission. They are in accordance with the provisions of the Newfoundland Act, and they reflect generally the views of the people of the island. The future form of government is a question which is left to the people of Newfoundland to decide after the war in Europe has ended, and His Majesty's Government have no desire to influence

their choice in any way. They will be prepared, with the assent of Parliament, to facilitate the change-over in any way that is practical when the decision has been made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government of the acceptance in principle of the right of Newfoundland to self-government; and urges His Majesty's Government to give effect to such approval by taking the necessary preliminary action as soon as practicable.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Macclesfield, a copy of which was presented to this House on 15th December, be appointed."—[Captain McEwen.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Ordered,
That Mr. Horabin be discharged from the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) and that Commander King-Hall be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SERVICE RECRUITS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Martin: After the grave, complex Imperial questions we have been discussing I would like to recall to the House for a few moments a matter which is, I think, of some domestic significance. I think it is common ground that in the early stages of the war a very large number of men were drafted into the Army after insufficient medical examination. The consequences of that were that a large number of people returned to civil life in a state of invalidity. I first took up this matter in 1940, or at the beginning of 1941, with the then


Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is now the Minister of State. My right hon. Friend showed me his usual courtesy and kindness, but he manifestly had some difficulty in dealing with his Department. There was a good deal of passing the buck between the War Office and the Ministry of Labour. The medical staff of the Ministry passed the men into the Army, which then became responsible for them. The present Financial Secretary to the War Office is rather apt—if my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me for the comparison—to remind me of these words:
Oh! lover of my life,
My soldier saint,
Who thrust his breast,
Between the spears and me.
His position is always to stand between an angry and political world and the General Staff in all its forms.
Sometimes, perhaps, he does not receive all the gratitude from the General Staff that he should receive in such matters. At any rate the Minister of State found difficulty in overcoming the objections of his Department, and my suggestions were turned down. Perhaps I may mention what they were, because I think they are still valid. I said I thought it possible that men below the category of A.1 who were passed into the Army should be medically examined from time to time. Most units possess medical officers. Most units consist of reasonably healthy and strong young men, or men in the prime of life, who do not make great calls on the medical officer, and it was the experience of most people in the last war and the earlier part of this that the medical officer of the unit at home was not overworked. Most of the men spend a good part of some days in the week in physical exercises and so on, which offer an opportunity, with a certain amount of organisation, to see that medical examinations are carried out. However that may be, I suggested to the Financial Secretary that it was not an insuperable problem, but the Department put obstacles in the way of doing anything about it. After a time I wearied of well-doing. The blitz was on at the time, and the Luftwaffe succeeded in dropping an explosive missile on the War Office which, I hasten to say, in case I am suspected of divulging security secrets, had no effect whatever. At a Departmental conference a member of the staff of the Foreign Office said,

"Will nothing move these people?" His colleague replied, "Only dynamite." Unfortunately even dynamite was insufficient. I felt that my dynamite ought to have been sufficient, and, as I say, I rather wearied of well-doing.
But I have repented of that, because I have found in the last year or so that the number of these people who come out of the Army has grown considerably. They go in for anything from six months to two years. Their career as a soldier is completely useless to the country, because before they are trained they have been found to be inefficient, for physical or mental reasons, and are marked for discharge. They are withdrawn from civil activities, often of a nature in which they could render very considerable service to the State at a very critical time. They are chargeable to the revenues of the State for an indefinite time afterwards by receiving pensions which, owing to the efforts of Members in all parts of the House, have now been put on a more satisfactory basis, but the fact remains that we are pensioning a great many people who ought never to have received pensions because they should never have been put into a position of having their health affected by military service. Most serious of all, these men have to look forward to a life of semi-invalidism in many cases. Practically any man who has his wits about him and two legs to stand on is able to get a job now, but their prospects, in spite of the efforts of the Ministry of Labour, of getting jobs after the war seem extraordinarily remote. They and their families are likely to suffer to the end of their lives in consequence of what has occurred, and all, I would suggest, with no profit to anybody concerned.
I would like to put it to my hon. Friend, who I know has very warm sympathy with this question, that something should be done now that we are tapping the older age groups and calling into the Army men who are round about middle age who have family responsibilities. Something should be done to keep a keen watch on these fellows and see that where they are unfitted for military life they are returned to civil life before their health is serious affected. I do not believe it is beyond the competence of the War Office and the wit of man to devise a system by which that can be accomplished.


I should like to give two examples which came to me in the last few weeks and which rather perturbed me, for they showed that the matter was still not being satisfactorily dealt with. A woman came to see me and said that her husband was in seriously bad health. His own doctor had diagnosed him as an epileptic and had sent him to King's College Hospital. They declined to confirm the diagnosis and wished to keep him in for treatment, but as a soldier he could not remain. They wrote to the man's unit and when he returned to the unit, the medical officer said, "You are all right; this is a lot of fuss about nothing." The woman said to me, "Is my whole life to be ruined because these people will take no notice of this matter at all?" As a result of the representations I made to him, my hon. and learned Friend took the matter up, and I am satisfied with the consequences. This man has now been seen by a specialist and his grade has been reduced. Suppose that woman had not come to me and had known nothing about her Member of Parliament. Her husband would never have gone before the specialist or seen by the medical board, and his health might have deteriorated to a considerable extent, all to no purpose.
The other case was that of a boy of 18 who was only 15 or 16 at the time of the blitz. This lad was buried with his mother and younger brothers and sisters when his house was struck. His father, who had an injury to his back, could not get into the shelter and had to stay upstairs. When they were dug out he was found to be seriously injured. The father was taken to hospital, and five weeks later he returned. The night after he returned the mother and younger brothers were out and came home to find the house had been struck a second time. The father was killed, and the lad was dug out from the débris seriously injured. Three years later the lad, physically recovered but in a nervous state, was called up to the Army. His doctor expressed the view that if he went into the Army it might have serious consequences and he might become a psycho-neurotic, of whom there are unfortunately too many at the present time. I hope that the War Office will do something about this case that if the lad comes out he will be paid a proper pension, because a com-

paratively young boy like that who has gone through experiences of that sort should be looked after properly by the State.
Those are two examples. I have no complaint against my hon. and learned Friend and only want to impress upon the House that this is a serious matter which I think needs looking into. We have been dealing in the last few weeks with very momentous questions and have heard one or two very moving appeals, one from my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) yesterday and one from another hon. Friend last week. If we are going to establish some kind of unity in this country to found a new world, I suggest that it will only be done if we understand, and master, the problem of reconciling the highest interests and welfare of the individual with the highest interests and welfare of the greater unity, whatever it may be, State or Commonwealth or international combination, and I suggest that we cannot do better than begin at once by showing that we are going to look after those people who will be the citizens of the new world and who must be made to enter it whole in body and in mind by every method we can devise.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I should like to assure my hon. Friend that whatever may have been the position in the early days of the war there has been no question of the War Office or the Ministry of Labour and National Service seeking to "pass the buck" from one to the other for the purpose of enabling me to deal with the matter which he has raised. I think it might be of interest, because it is obviously a very important consideration to most families in the country, if I were to give the House some idea of the system that has been and is in operation governing the medical examination of recruits into the Army. The medical examination of all Service recruits is carried out by medical boards set up by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the National Service Acts. The practice of the boards is governed by a code of instructions which was first issued in May, 1939. That code has from time to time been revised by a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Horder, a very famous doctor. That Committee advises the Minister of Labour on all


questions in connection with the medical examination of men for the Armed Forces and representatives of the three Service Departments are on the Committee.
In regard to the method of examination, every man is examined by a medical board and is seen by four doctors, that is, the chairman of the board and his three colleagues. The great majority of both the chairmen and members are general practitioners, a considerable number are retired officers of the Navy, Army and Indian Medical Services, and a few of the chairmen are consultants, either retired or still in practice. The duty of examiner No. 1, if I may call him that, is to investigate the mental condition, nervous stability and previous health of each man and to examine his nervous system. The duty of examiner No. 2 is to examine the eyes and test the voice, to examine the teeth, throat, nose and ears, to note the physical development, to test the movements of joints, and to inquire into the history of injuries and operations. The duty of examiner No. 3 is to take the pulse rate, examine the heart and, where necessary, test the blood pressure, and apply the exercise tolerance test, to take the measurements of the chest and to examine the lungs and abdomen, and to confirm any abnormalities noted by the previous examiners. The duty of the chairman is to review the case as a whole, and, after consulting three colleagues, to decide the grading. Perhaps the House would be interested to know that, on the average, the examination takes just under half-an-hour. Any man about whom the board has any doubt may be referred to a consultant or specialist. Since June, 1939, about five per cent. of the men examined have been referred to an opthalmologist and five per cent. to other specialists or consultants.
As regards classification, recruits are classified in one of five grades, I, IIA, II, III and IV. Only those men who are placed in Grades I, IIA, and II are accepted for service. Grade I men are those who are subject only to such minor disabilities as can be remedied or adequately compensated by artificial means such as spectacles, false teeth and so on, and attain the full normal standard of health and strength and are capable of enduring physical exertion suitable to their age. Grade II men are those who are suffering from disabilities disqualifying

them for Grade I, do not suffer from progressive organic disease, have fair hearing and vision, are of moderate, muscular development and are also able to undergo a considerable amount of physical exercise not involving severe strain. Grade IIA indicates that a man has been placed in Grade II solely on account of defects either of visual equity or deformity of the lower extremities, or both.
This civilian medical board grade is subsequently translated into the corresponding Army categories A, A1, B, B1 and so on, and this is reviewed by the military medical officer when the man joins up for service. I want to be quite frank with the House; it is quite true to say that the Army medical officer does not undertake an exhaustive examination, although he does examine the man stripped; but he checks over the facts which have been ascertained by the Ministry of Labour medical board. It is sufficient for this lesser examination to take place when the man arrives at his unit, in view of the fact that the fuller examination has taken place by the Ministry of Labour medical board, and the facts contained in their report are with the military medical officer. Unless it is considered that there has been a definite error in grading, no category is changed by an Army medical officer until the man has been at least one month in the Army, except in the case of technical personnel. The interval between a man's medical examination under the National Service Acts and the date when he joins his unit does not normally exceed from six to eight weeks. The interval may be longer, it is true, in Some cases, for example where a man has secured postponement of his calling up on the grounds of exceptional hardship. In that case there may be a greater interval of time, but Regulations are about to be issued which will ensure that no man shall be called up for service who has not been medically examined or re-examined within the preceding six months.
Now the question may arise, What right of appeal, of protest, has a man if he disagrees with the findings of the Ministry of Labour medical board? A man who considers he has been wrongly graded by the Board can protest, and his protest will be considered by the Ministry of National Service. If there is any reason to think there has been a deterioration in his health since the first examination,


or if any fresh medical evidence can be produced, a re-examination is arranged. In addition, I am told that since September, 1941, there has been a note placed on the grade card given to a man at the time of medical examination which asks him to notify the Minister of Labour and National Service if before he is called up for service he has a serious illness or accident or otherwise has reason to believe that his health has deteriorated.
It may interest the House to know that the number of men who have been invalided out of the Army within six months as a result of what, in the opinion of the Army medical authorities, was an error in grading during the period 1st July, 1941, to 31st August, 1943, represents seven in every 10,000 of the total intake during this period and three in every 1,000 of the total invalided out of the Army during the same period. The figures for the period before 1st July, 1941, are unfortunately not available. It

appears therefore that the number of men who join the Army although they ought to have been rejected on medical grounds is very small indeed, and the figures quoted above, I suggest, can be regarded as satisfactory and are regarded as satisfactory by the Army medical authorities. I hope I have been able to give sufficient facts and sufficient explanation of the system that operates in regard to the intake of recruits from the point of view of their medical examination. I hope also that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that whatever does go wrong in individual cases, as I think is bound to be the case, and no doubt in spite of the arrangements that have been made will continue to be the case, the percentage is so small that the problem has been reduced to very minute dimensions, and the House and the country can take it that on the whole this problem has been very satisfactorily dealt with.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.